08-22-1984 MinutesBOARD OF SUPERVISORS
MINUTES
August 22, 1984
Supervisors in Attendance:
Mr. Harry G. Daniel, Chairman
Mr. G. H. Applegate, Vice Chairman
Mr. R. Garland Dodd
Mrs. Joan Girone
Mr. Jesse J. Mayes
Mr. Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
Staff in Attendance:
Mr. Stanley R. Balderson,
Dir. of Planning
Chief Robert Eanes, Fire
Department
Mr. Robert Galusha,
Personnel Dir.
Mr. James Gillentine,
Nursing Home Admin.
Mr. Robert Hodder,
Building Official
Mr. Elmer Hodge, Asst.
County Administrator
Mr. Robert Masden,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Human Services
Mr.~Richard McElfish,
Environmental Eng.
Mr. Steve Micas, Co.
Attorney
Mrs. Pauline Mitchell,
Public Info. Officer
Mr. Jeffrey Muzzy,
Asst. Co. Admin. for
Community Develop.
Mr. Lane Ramsey, Dir.
of Budget & Acctg.
Mr. Charles Quaiff, Sup.
of Accts. & Records
Mr. M. D. Stith, Jr.,
Exe. Asst. to Co. Adm.
Mr. David Welchons,
Dir. of Utilities
Mr. Daniel called the meeting to order at the Courthouse at 9:00
a.m. (EDST).
1. INVOCATION
Mr. Daniel introduced Reverend W. Bruce Wilder, Pastor of Christ
the King Lutheran Church, who gave the invocation.
2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
2.A. AMENDMENT TO JULY 25, 1984
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved corrections to the minutes of July 25, 1984 which were
amended incorrectly on August 8, 1984 to as originally written as
follows:
"9. K. 3. SEWER ITEMS
9.K.3.a. .REQUEST FOR PUBLIC SEWER IN JIMMY WINTERS ROAD AREA
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved and authorized the Utilities Department to send
contracts to the existing homes in Jimmy Winters Road area to
ascertain the number of residents that will agree to connect to
public sewer which estimated cost'is $50,300.00.
Vote: Unanimous"
84-466
Vote: Unanimous
2.B. MINUTES OF AUGUST 2, 3 and 4, 1984
Mr. Daniel inquired if these minutes were the official minutes of
the meeting and if they were the only copy published by either
Board in attendance. Mr. Micas stated he was not aware of any
others. Mr. Daniel requested that a copy of the minutes be
forwarded to the School Board for concurrence.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
the minutes of August 2, 3 and 4, 1984, as amended, subject to
the School Board's concurrence.
Vote: Unanimous
2.C. MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 1984
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the minutes of August 8, 1984, as submitted.
Vote: Unanimous
3. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS
Mr. Hedrick introduced Ms. Bonnie Winston with the Richmond Times
Dispatch who was substituting for Paula Squires, Ms. Cheryl Munn
with WRNL Radio who was substituting for Scott Hogenson, and Ms.
Marguerite Bardone with WTVR who was substituting for Eric Allen.
Mr. Hedrick introduced Ms. Venita Peyton, with Storer Cable
Television, and stated she would be going to North Carolina to
establish and direct a local access cable studio in the Raleigh
Civic Center. The Board wished Ms. Peyton much success in her
future endeavors.
Mr. Hedrick stated the Richmond Metro Chamber of Commerce
annually selects a group of outstanding leaders in the community
to participate in the Leadership Metro Program. He stated Mr.
Elmer Hodge was selected to participate in this program along
with 40± people in the Metro area. He stated they will be
meeting with state and local business leaders from the community
to learn more about Richmond and the Metro area. The Board
congratulated Mr. Hodge on his selection.
4. ITEMS TO BE DELETED OR HEARD OUT OF SEQUENCE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
moved item 7.A., Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance to Amend
the Code of the County of Chesterfield, 1978, as Amended, by
Amending Sections 20-7 and 20-27 Relating to Connection Fees for
the Sewer and Water System to after item 9.E.2.d., and adopted
the agenda as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
5. RESOLUTIONS OF SPECIAL RECOGNITION
5.A. JOHN BALDOCK, POCAHONTAS STATE FOREST RANGER
Mr. Hedrick introduced Mr. John Baldock, Forest Ranger for
Pocahontas State Forest.
84-467
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. John Baldock will retire from the Virginia
Division of Forestry on August 31, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Baldock has served as Forest Ranger at
Pocahontas State Forest since November 16, 1967 providing years
of quality service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Baldock's diligent service will be sorely
missed as he supervised the implementation of the multi-use
program, the timber sales, the layout and construction of forest
roads, the site preparation and reforestation of harvested areas,
as well as many other aspects of the Forest operation.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Baldock and extends on behalf
of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for his service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mr. Baldock and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel recognized Mr. Baldock's family and presented Mr.
Baldock with the framed resolution. Mr. Baldock expressed
appreciation to the Board for the cooperation received from the
County and for this recognition.
5oSo
ETTRICK CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Mr. Balderson stated the proposed resolutions recognize the
members of the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee which was
instrumental in promoting the Community Development Block Grant
program in Ettrick and assistance to County staff to ensure that
this program was successful. He stated there would be a dinner
to which the Board has been invited at which time the resolutions
would be presented. Mr. William Hawkins expressed, on behalf of
the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee, appreciation for the
help, assistance and cooperation which the Board had given. He
stated much has been accomplished but there are still things that
need attention. He expressed special appreciation to Mrs. Linda
Grasewicz for her assistance in this endeavor.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors eStablished the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in ~978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee service has
been instrumental in successful completion of the Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, Mr. James H. Brockwell was appointed to the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brockwell served faithfully on the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee until his death; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Brockwell's six years of service to the
citizens of Chesterfield County and the Village of Ettrick
deserves special recognition.
84-468
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mr.
James H. Bro6kwell for his loyal and dedicated service to the
citizens of Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in 1978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee service has
been instrumental in successful completion of the Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Leon Crawley was appointed to the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Crawley has served faithfully on the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Crawley's six years of service to the citizens
of Chesterfield County and the Village of Ettrick deserves
special recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mr.
Leon Crawley for his loyal and dedicated service to the citizens
of Chesterfield County. ·
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in 1978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee service has
been instrumental in successful completion of the Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, Mr. William Hawkins was appointed to the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hawkins has served faithfully as Chairman of
the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee since 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Hawkins' six years of service to the citizens
of Chesterfield County and the Village of Ettrick deserves
special recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mr.
William Hawkins for his loyal and dedicated service to the
citizens of Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in 1978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
84-469
WHEREAS, the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee service has
been instrumental in successful completion of the Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Thomas Verdell was appointed to the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Verdell has served faithfully on the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Verdell's six years of service to the citizens
of Chesterfield County and the Village of Ettrick deserves
special recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mr.
Thomas Verdell for his loyal and dedicated service to the
citizens of Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in 1978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee service has
been instrumental in successful completion of the Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Janice Via was appointed to the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Via has served faithfully on the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee and has coordinated the Ettrick
"Clean-up Campaign" for three years; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Via's six years of service to the citizens of
Chesterfield County and the Village of Ettrick deserves special
recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
o~ Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mrs.
Janice Via for her loyal and dedicated service to the citizens of
Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in 1978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee service has
been instrumental in successful completion of the Community
Development Block Grant program; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Arthur Willis, III was appointed to the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee on October 11, 1978; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Willis has served faithfully on the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee; and
84-470
WHEREAS, Mr. Willis' six years of service to the citizens of
Chesterfield County and the Village of Ettrick deserves special
recognition.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to Mr.
Arthur Willis, III for his loyal and dedicated service to the
citizens of Chesterfield County.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of the Board, the fOllowing~resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors established the Ettrick
Citizens Advisory Committee in 1978 to provide Chesterfield
County with citizen feedback during the Community Development
Block Grant Program; and
WHEREAS, Virginia State University is an important member of
the Ettrick Community and a representative of this institution
was appointed in 1980 to the Ettrick Citizens Advisory Committee;
and
WHEREAS, Virginia State University has worked closely with
Committee members in addressing CDBG program needs.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors
of Chesterfield County hereby expresses its appreciation to
Virginia State University for its support of the Ettrick Citizens
Advisory Committee and Ettrick residents.
Vote: Unanimous
5.C. MARGARET M. BALDOCK, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Galusha introduced Mr. David Welchons. Mr. Welchons
introduced Mrs. Baldock and stated appreciation for her many
years of dependable service with the Utilities Department.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mrs. Margaret M. Baldock will retire from the
Utilities Department, Chesterfield County, on September 1, 1984;
and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Baldock has pr6vided 17 years of quality
service to the citizens of Chesterfield County; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mrs. Baldock's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mrs. Baldock and extends on
behalf of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County
their appreciation for her service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mrs. Baldock and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Mrs. Baldock with the framed resolution and
recognized her family who was present. Mrs. Baldock stated she
had enjoyed her association with the County and appreciated this
recognition.
84-471
5.E. MAXWELL J. ROWLETT, UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
Mr. Welchons stated that Mr. Rowlett could not be present today
but expressed his appreciation for Mr. Rowlett's dedicated
service to the Utilities Department.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Mr. Maxwell J. Rowlett retired from the Utility
Department, Chesterfield County, on July 31, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Mr. Rowlett's service to the citizens of
Chesterfield County has been characterized by dedication and high
ideals; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Mr. Rowlett's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognizes Mr. Rowlett and extends on behalf
of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for his service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Mr. Rowlett and that this Resolution be
permanently recorded among the papers of this Board of
Supervisors of Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented the framed resolution to Mr. Welchons on
behalf of Mr. Rowlett who could not be present.
5.D. CHRISTINE HEDGE, NURSING HOME
Mr. Galusha introduced Mr. James Gillentine who would accept the
resolution on behalf of Ms. Hedge who could not be present at the
meeting today.
On motion of the Board, the following resolution was adopted:
WHEREAS, Ms. Christine Hedge retired from the Nursing Home,
Chesterfield County, on August 1, 1984; and
WHEREAS, Ms. Hedge has provided six years of quality service
to the citizens of Chesterfield Cqunty; and
WHEREAS, Chesterfield County and the Board of Supervisors
will miss Ms. Hedge's diligent service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RE~QLVED that this Board of
Supervisors publicly recognize~ Ms. Hedge and extends on behalf
of its members and the citizens of Chesterfield County their
appreciation for her service to the County.
AND, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a copy of this Resolution
be presented to Ms. Hedge and that this Resolution be permanently
recorded among the papers of this Board of Supervisors of
Chesterfield County, Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel presented Mr. Gillentine with the framed resolution on
behalf of Ms. Hedge.
6. HEARINGS OF CITIZENS ON UNSCHEDULED MATTERS OR CLAIMS
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no hearings of citizens scheduled
for this meeting.
84-472
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
7.B. PUBLIC HEARING - CONVEYANCE OF SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD
Mr. Hedrick stated this date and time had been scheduled for a
public hearing to consider the conveyance of 0.339 acres to the
Commonwealth of Virginia for the extension of Southlake Boulevard
between Courthouse Road and Branchway Road. Mr. Welchons stated
the deed has been signed but there is a legal agreement which has
not yet been finalized. After further discussion, it was on
motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the
Board continue the public hearing regarding this conveyance until
September 12, 1984 at 7:00 p.m.
Vote: Unanimous
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
Mr. Hedrick stated there were no public hearings scheduled for
this meeting.
9. NEW BUSINESS
9.A. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD CONTRACT PRESENTATION
Mr. Galusha introduced Mr. Jim Rapp, insurance consultant with
Industrial Insurance Management Corporation, and Dr. Frank Cain
with the School Administration, who were present.
Mr. Rapp briefly reviewed the County's health care program for
the past few years. He stated in 1979 the County was on a
program which provided 100% coverage when you went into the
hospital. He stated at that time there was a 20% rate increase.
He stated in 1980 there was a 37% rate increase due to health
care inflation. He stated coverage was not changed and it was a
very cadillac program. He stated in 1981 there was a 48% rate
increase. He stated it was recognized that these increases could
not continue and at that time a comprehensive major medical
program was looked into and adopted in 1982. He stated this
provided a new level of coverage which is still outstanding in
the health care market today. He stated this program was
initiated to control as much as possible the escalation of health
care costs. He stated the program worked, there was no rate
increase last year. He stated the rate adjustment that Blue
Cross is recommending now is the first rate adjustment for the
program in two years and will carry the program through a 36
month period. He stated the employees have had a lot to do with
this and this program is enjoying outstanding rate stability in a
market that still is climbing over 12% per year for health care
expenditures. He stated the original intent is working but if
you are still having these increases in health care costs,
you have to have an increase in rates as well. He stated with
the anticipated experience throughout the remainder of this
contract year, Blue Cross computes a rate adjustment of 37% to
continue with the existing level of coverage for the coming year.
He stated this has been reviewed and staff feels this is an
accurate estimate. He stated it has been recommended that the
County pay any deficits that may develop during the remainder of
the year which is estimated at $200,000 and not load it into the
renewal rate, which would reduce the rate increase to 20% from
37%. He stated there is also another coverage being offered by
Blue Cross called KeyCare which is a new health care delivery
program which is a preferred provider organization. He stated
they have established separate contracts with providers in this
area and as a result these providers will charge a reduced rate
for those people who go to them for treatment. He stated because
of the way it is structured, it has a lower unit cost and would
84-473
be less expensive. He stated this is the third option sponsored
by the County for health care in the past three years. He stated
we are finally seeing competition in the health care industry
which is necessary in order to reduce the ever increasing costs.
He stated it is wise to sponsor other programs when offered when
they are a benefit to the County and its employees. He stated
the KeyCare program is based on the concept of cost containment
which will encourage treatment only when necessary and through
the least expensive means as is possible. He stated if the Board
approves the 20% rate adjustment, pays the $200,000 deficit and
adopts the KeyCare program while continuing to fund the employee
cost based on the comprehensive major medical program as provided
for them, it will be a good program. ~He stated we must also
recognize that health care inflation is still continuing, and we
may continually have this problem in the renewal year. He stated
other changes in coverages will have to be reviewed because of
the market and there will be changes within the next 12 months.
Mr. Dodd stated he had a problem with taking $200,000 of general
revenue money to pay off the deficit and he felt the increase was
high. He stated once in the past a similar type situation was
recommended but things worked out and it was unnecessary to
appropriate funds. He inquired why it was necessary to
appropriate funds to hold down the rates and why the increased
rate could not work itself out over a period of time.
Mr. Hedrick explained that Mr. Rapp is the County's insurance
consultant. He stated a benefit that we offer the County
employee is that we pay the total cost of his/her hospitalization
insurance. He stated we are basically on a self-insured program
and what we pay out in hospitalization costs is the actual cost
of claims plus a small percentage charged by Blue Cross for
administration. He stated several years ago, when this issue
arose, we were $600,000 in arrears, we came up with a
compromise--a deductible coverage reducing the benefit--and
passed the additional cost on to the employee. He stated this
time our claims exceeded our revenue by $200,000 and as a result
we are asking the Board to make up the difference. He stated
since the Board does pay the total cost for the employee, it is
reasonable to assume the County should pay the increased rate
because it is basically a general fund expenditure. Mr. Dodd
inquired why a compromise could not be worked out to where the
rate adjustment could pay the deficit without going into the
general fund. Mr. Hedrick stated that would make the rate go to
37% rather than 20% and staff feels this is a substantial rate
increase to pass on and that the general fund will pay a
substantial portion of it anyway.
Mr. Daniel stated he shared Mr. Dodd's concerns. He reviewed the
rates for an employee, the family coverage, etc. in comparison to
their income and the percentage of increase which he felt was
very high. He stated perhaps ~he entire plan should be reviewed,
consider reductions in coverage, etc. He stated he could not
vote for $200,000 from the general fund with a 20% increase to
employees. Mr. Applegate inquired what the alternative was. Mr.
Rapp stated it is either 20% with the County paying off the
deficit or 37% if the County does not. He stated the plan is on a
form of self-insurance with the claims coming out of your pocket.
He stated if you don't put the money in the rate structure by
increasing the rates, you develop a deficit that must be paid
oft in a lump sum or automatically loaded into the renewal rates
next year. He stated it was a question of timing, when do you
want to pay for the claims--each month by adding it into the
rates or do you want to have a very large deficit develop if
claims continue at their present pace next year. He stated the
alternative would be to do like other employers are doing, which
is to recognize that you can only ask the employee to pay so much
money per month for his health care coverage and it does little
good to have a program that is so broad in coverage that it is
too expensive and people drop out of the plan because they cannot
afford the payroll deduction, so they are reducing coverage
84-474
and making a program that is more affordable and only those that
use the plan will have to pay more because of deductibles,
co-insurance, etc. He stated this is one of the main reasons for
adopting the KeyCare plan now because it is a less expensive
option for those employees who have a budgetary problem. He
reviewed the KeyCare rates.
Mr. Daniel inquired if the employees were aware of this proposed
increase. Mr. Hedrick stated there are orientation sessions
scheduled as staff wanted the Board to be aware of the issue
first. Mr. Daniel stated he would like to have some employee
feedback before making a decision as he did not feel there was
enough presented.
Mrs. Girone, after reviewing the figures, stated with rising
health care costs and the fact that there are alternatives for
the employees, etc., she felt this was within reason and was not
an undue burden unless the Board wants to change the offering to
the employee. She stated the Board may want to say we cannot
afford to offer that quality of coverage for the employee and
then we will have to look at the entire program and the
alternatives. She stated the County offers the comprehensive
program for the employees but offers other programs for those who
may not want this level of protection. Mr. Daniel stated there
is a range ~rom $107.00 to $124.00 between the options offered.
He stated he felt uncomfortable deciding on this matter without
taking a few weeks to review the entire insurance program
provided to the employees and to receive some feedback as to what
the employees are seeking and what they are willing to pay. He
stated he did not feel the employees knew there was an item on
the Board agenda which could change there paychecks by 5-10%.
Mrs. Girone stated years ago the Board did go through and obtain
employee input. Mr. Daniel inquired if that input was still
valid.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded
by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the Board defer consideration of this
matter until September 12, 1984 to allow the Board time to be
presented with additional information.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel asked that the County Administrator address the
concerns mentioned here today and advise the Board prior to the
next meeting.
9.B. REQUESTS FOR MUSIC FESTIVAL PERMITS
9.B.1. BELLWOOD DRIVE IN
Mr. Micas presented the Board with a request for a Music Festival
permit from the Bellwood Drive In for August 24, 25 and 26th. He
stated that there were some changes to conditions recommended
which were to delete Item 4, amend #8 to read $5,000 rather than
$2,500, and the addition of condition 11, that the promoters will
hire one plain clothes policeman for each night. Ms. Riddle
presented the Board with a paper on research on concerts and
festivals in the area. Mrs. Girone inquired about the
consumption of alcoholic beverages. Ms. Riddle stated their
advertisements indicate no alcohol, no drugs and no bottles of
any type are permitted. Mr. Dodd stated that events held at
Bellwood have been handled in a very satisfactory manner. After
further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr.
Mayes, resolved that the Board approve the request for a Music
Festival permit for the Bellwood Drive In on August 24, 25 and 26
subject to Music Festival Ordinance as well as the following
special conditions:
84-475
That a supervisory police officer be paid for by the
applicant and be present during all performances.
That a fire officer be present at the beginning of each
performance and perform spot checks throughout the course of
each performance.
3. That the applicant acquire twelve port-a-johns.
That the applicant acquire additional food storage
capabilities as approved by the Health Department.
Se
That a licensed electrician be present during the set-up of
any electrical equipment for the bands, disc jockeys or
other performers.
That an inspection by a County Building Inspector of the
electrical equipment and hook-up be satisfactorily completed
before each performance.
That a bond in the amount of $10,000 be submitted to the
County insuring faithful performance of all the applicants'
responsibilities.
8. That a deposit in the amount of $5,000 be submitted to the
Board to insure payment of all personnel expenses.
9. A guarantee from the applicant that the number of cars
admitted will not exceed parking capacity.
10. Insurance coverage acceptable to Risk Manager.
11. That the promoters will hire one plain clothes policeman for
each night.
Vote: Unanimous
9.B.2. CHESTERFIELD COUNTY FAIR ASSOCIATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved an outdoor festival and entertainment permit for the
Chesterfield County Fair Association for September 10-15, 1984
subject to the Music Festival Ordinance of the County.
Vote: Unanimous
9.C. APPOINTMENTS
9.C.1. METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING ORGANIZATION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appointed Mr. John McCracken as the regular voting member on the
Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization and Mr. Stanley
Balderson as the alternate for the Chesterfield delegation which
terms are effective immediately and are at the pleasure of the
Board of Supervisors.
Vote: Unanimous
9.C.2. KEEP CHESTERFIELD CLEAN COMMITTEE
The Board officially accepted the resignation of Ms. Melody Gray
from the Keep Chesterfield Clean Committee, representing
Midlothian District, effective May 14, 1984, and the Board
further nominated Mrs. Cynthia Green for appointment at the
September 12, 1984 meeting to fill this vacancy.
84-476
9.D. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ITEMS
9.D.1. STATE ROAD ACCEPTANCE
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Wadsworth Drive, West Wadsworth Place, East
Wadsworth Place, Wadsworth Way, Scottingham Drive, Grinell Drive
and Grinell Court in Whitestone, Section 1, Clover Hill District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Wadsworth Drive,
West Wadsworth Place, East Wadsworth Place, Wadsworth Way,
Scottingham Drive, Grinell Drive and Grinell Court in Whitestone,
Section 1, Clover Hill District, be and they hereby are
established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, wadsworth Drive, beginning where
State Maintenance ends on existing Wadsworth Drive, State Route
2687, extending northeast 0.04 mile to the intersection of East
Wadsworth Place and West Wadsworth Place, then northeast 0.07
mile to the intersection of Wadsworth Way then northeast 0.08
mile to the intersection of Scottingham Drive; West Wadsworth
Place, beginning at its intersection with Wadsworth Drive,
extending northwest 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac; East Wadsworth
Place, beginning at its intersection with Wadsworth Drive,
extending southeast 0.06 mile to a cul-de-sac; Wadsworth Way,
beginning at its intersection with Wadsworth Drive, extending
southeast 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac; Scottingham Drive, beginning
at its intersection with Wadsworth Drive, extending southeast
0.09 mile to the intersection of Grinell Drive, then southeast
0.03 mile to tie into existing Scottingham Drive, State Route
2728; Grinell Drive, beginning at its intersection with
Scottingham Drive, extending southwest 0.08 mile to a cul-de-sac
and extending northeast 0.06 mile to the intersection of Grinell
Court; Grinell Court, beginning at its intersection with Grinell
Drive, extending northwest 0.04 mile to a cul-de-sac. These
roads serve 66 lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 40 ft. right
of way for all of these roads except Wadsworth Drive which has a
60 ft. right of way and Scottingham Drive and West Grinell Drive
which have a 50 ft. right of way. This section of Whitestone is
recorded as follows:
Section 1, Plat Book 41, Pages 27 and 28, July 14, 1982.
Vote: Unanimous
This day the County Environmental Engineer, in accordance with
directions from this Board, made report in writing upon his
examination of Gamecock Road and Swamp Fox Road in North Hundred,
Section A, Midlothian District.
Upon consideration whereof, and on motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mrs. Girone, it is resolved that Gamecock Road and
Swamp Fox Road in North Hundred, Section A, Midlothian District,
be and they hereby are established as public roads.
And be it further resolved, that the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation, be and it hereby is requested to
take into the Secondary System, Gamecock Road, beginning at
intersection with Otterdale Road, State Route 667, and going .10
mile northwesterly to intersection with Swamp Fox Road, then
continues .01 mile northwesterly to dead end; Swamp Fox Road,
84-477
beginning at intersection with Gamecock Road and going 0.38 mile
southwesterly to a temporary turnaround. These roads serve 17
lots.
And be it further resolved, that the Board of Supervisors
guarantees to the Virginia Department of Highways a 50 ft. right
of way for all of these roads. This section of North Hundred is
recorded as follows:
Section A, Plat Book 38, Pages 19 & 20, Recorded February 4,
1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9.D.2. STREET LIGHT INSTALLATION COST APPROVAL
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved the installation cost of a street light at the
intersection of S. Providence Road and Woodward Drive in the
amount of $253.00 which funds are to be expended from the Clover
Hill District Street Light Funds.
Vote: Unanimous
9.D.3. CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER FOR EDGEMERE BOULEVARD
Mr. McElfish stated the County had received a request from the
Meadowbrook Civic Association to install curb and gutter along
Edgemere Boulevard. He stated the Highway Department has
informed the Association that they did not have any funds but if
funds could be obtained they would perform the work. He stated
the County and the Civic Association met and considered this
project and the project was reduced by half the distance with
the cost being reduced from $26,000 to $12,000. On motion of Mr.
Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board appropriated
$12,000 from the Dale District 3¢ Road Funds for concrete curb
and gutter along Edgemere Boulevard, Route 2318, and further
adopted the following resolution:
Whereas, the Chesterfield County Board of Supervisors is
interested in pursuing the installation of concrete curbing along
Edgemere Boulevard (Route 2318).
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield county
Board of Supervisors appropriates $12,000 from the Dale District
3¢ Road Funds for installation of curbing along Edgemere
Boulevard from Hopkins Road to Monza Drive; and
And Further, Be It Resolved that the Chesterfield County
BOard of Supervisors requests ~he Virginia Department of Highways
and Transportation to construc~ said improvements, on an accounts
receivable basis.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel requested that Mr. McElfish inform him when the exact
date would be when the work would begin.
9.D.4. TEMPORARY CLOSING OF BRANDERS BRIDGE ROAD
On motion.of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved the temporary closing of Branders Bridge Road to through
traffic for approximately 120 days while a new box culvert is
constructed at Old Town Creek by the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation.
Vote: Unanimous
84-478
Mr. McElfish stated the Highway Department will take care of
notification prior to closing. He stated the closing is
anticipated to be September, 1985 through January, 1986. Mr.
Mayes stated there was no opposition to the proposal.
9.D.5. CRACKED FLOOR IN BUFORD ROAD FIRE STATION
Mr. Muzzy stated when the slab in the apparatus floor of the new
Buford Road Fire Station was poured a series of extensive cracks
developed. He stated staff has worked with the contractor who
attempted to correct the problem by applying a coating surface
which is not satisfactory. He stated at that time assurances
were provided that if this were not acceptable, the contractor
would still have continuing responsibilities. He stated staff
has informed the contractor that the County wants the slab
removed and replaced with a new slab which he has refused to do
and offered another coating solution. He stated it is
recommended that staff be authorized to enter into a contract to
have the slab removed and replaced and the County Attorney's
office was directed to obtain funds from the contractor for this
project which is estimated to cost $40,000 which would be
returned back to the General Fund Contingency when recovered.
Mrs. Girone stated she felt the County has been more than
cooperative with the contractor and felt the action was
appropriate as recommended. Mr. Daniel inquired if the
contractor had been removed from all County bid lists. Mr. Micas
stated he has not, but he would check into this matter.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the receiving of bids for the removal and replacement
of the apparatus floor at the Buford Road Fire Station at a cost
not to exceed $40,000 which funds are hereby appropriated from the
Contingency account, authorized the County Administrator to enter
into contract with the low bidder for the work, directed the
County Attorney to proceed with such legal action as may be
necessary to recover this cost and authorized that the funds
recovered be returned to the Contingency account when received
from the contractor.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E. UTILITIES DEPARTMENT
9.E.1. REPORTS
9.E.l.a. WATER AND SEWER FINANCIAL REPORTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with the water and sewer
financial reports.
9.E.l.b. DEVELOPER WATER AND SEWER CONTRACTS
Mr. Welchons presented the Board with a list of developer water
and sewer contracts executed by the County Administrator.
9.E.2. WATER AND SEWER ITEMS
9.E.2.a. WATER FOR BRANDERS BRIDGE, CARVER HOME SITES AREA
Mr. Welchons stated a survey was completed in the Branders
Bridge, Bradley Bridge, Carver Home Sites area regarding the
contaminated wells. He stated of the 13 wells, 8 were
contaminated, but review also indicated that the contamination
was not due to the landfill but from surface water and old wells
which are not properly grouted or have cracked. He stated also
that staff is beginning to improve some of the drainage
84-479
problems in the area. He presented the Board with several
options to correct the well water situation dealing with new
wells, source of funds for financial assistance to construct new
wells, public water, etc. He stated 48 of the 70 existing homes
want public water and the estimated cost is $300,000. He stated
staff identified a source of funds to assist income eligible
residents with connection fees and cost of installation of
laterals. He stated the County also has an installment plan for
20 months. He stated the basic recommendations are that staff
survey the income of area residents and assist those eligible to
dig a new well or authorize the design and construction of the
water system and appropriate $300,000 and authorized staff to
survey the income of residents and apply for Virginia Water
Project funds for connection fees and service laterals.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board:
(1) Authorized the design and construction of the subject water
system;
(2) Appropriated $300,000 from 563 surplus to 380-1-64364-4393;
(3) Authorized staff to survey the income of area residents and
to apply for and accept Virginia Water Project funds toward
the cost of connection fees for eligible residents; and
(4) Authorized staff to assist eligible residents with service
lateral construction from the water meter to the house with
Virginia Water Project assistance.
Mr. Applegate inquired about the number of property owners in
the area, the connection fee and about the average cost per
connection which would be reduced if all property owners
connected. Mr. Welchons stated that the cost estimates were
based on installing service lines and meters for the 48
residences that signed contracts for water service and if more
than the 48 applied for water service, the cost would have to be
increased by approximately $500 each. He stated nothing was
estimated for property owners who may apply for service later and
it is not included in the $300,000. Mr. Daniel inquired if the
new ones will pay the developer cost at the prevailing rates at
those times or an existing home will pay an existing house cost.
Mr. Welchons stated there is a basic water connection fee. He
stated a developer, when he installs the lines, is allowed a
credit off that basic connection fee. He stated anyone who comes
in on a line that is not installed by a developer or a new home
constructed on a line along an existing line, they would pay the
basic water connection fee.
Mr. Dodd inquired if this line would provide better pressure for
the Route 10 area. Mr. Welchons stated it would help a minimal
amount but it would be tied into the old Route 10 corridor. Mr.
Dodd inquired if Carver School would be able to connect. Mr.
Welchons stated they are goinq to connect .to another line already
installed in the area. ~
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.2.b. PUBLIC WATER AND SEWER FOR BALLARD OAKS SUBDIVISION
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
cancelled the project for public water and sewer in the Ballard
Oaks Subdivision because of the poor response of the residents to
connect to either the public water or sewer.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.2.c. REQUEST FOR PUBLIC WATER ON HILDA AVENUE
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the Utilities Department to send contracts to the
residents to determine the number of residents on Hilda Avenue
that would connect to public water if it were made available.
84-480
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd expressed appreciation to the Utilities Department and
Mr. Stith for their assistance in having this matter resolved.
9.E.2.d. PUBLIC SEWER IN JIMMY WINTERS ROAD AREA
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the Utilities Department to design and construct this
extension provided at least 70% of the homeowners sign contracts
to connect to public sewer and that $66,000 be appropriated ~rom
573 surplus to 380-1-74334-4393. And further that the Board be
advised of what the return is ~on the survey in the event that it
does not meet the necessary percentage to give the Board the
opportunity to reconsider the matter.
Vote: Unanimous
7. DEFERRED ITEMS
7.A. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING WATER AND SEWER CONNECTION FEES
Mr. Daniel stated the Board held a public hearing on a
comprehensive ordinance relating to water and sewer. He stated
after the public hearing and Board discussion, the Board
disposed of the majority of the ordinance and because of several
questions regarding water and sewer connection fees, a committee
was appointed to review the recommendations and present
additional information to the Board. Mr. Welchons stated the
committee did review the costs proposed for the sewer and water
connection fees and presented the Board with slides outlining
average costs to the homeowners and to the'County per unit with
regard to the connection fees based on 25 recently awarded
contracts. He stated the other concern that the Board expressed
was the connection fees for new homes but this cannot be
increased unless it is readvertised. He stated staff plans to
discuss these matters with the homebuilders in the future, but
first has to have a better handle on dollars that are needed for
capital improvements to see if those funds could be raised
through connection fees. Mr. Hedrick reminded the Board that
when the County installs water and sewer into a section it is
usually done at the request of citizens and the County does not
have a mandatory connection requirement so people have the option
as to whether to connect or not. Mrs. Girone stated as she
understands this, the existing home connection fee is proposed to
be raised to $1,000 but it really should be $1,500. Mr. Welchons
stated if the Board wanted to cover the total cost, it should be
raised to $2,000. Mrs. Girone inquired if this would be addressed
in the future. Mr. Welchons stated that the homeowners who need
the services should pay for them, as it is more costly to go back
into an existing subdivision. Mrs. Girone stated that she was
talking to some people at the Local Governments Conference and
there are local governments in the state that have $4,200 and
$6,500 connection fees. Mr. Daniel stated that ten new homes pay
for one existing and that number should be reduced. Mr. Hedrick
stated it has been the Board's policy to contain costs but it has
gotten to the point where staff felt it should be brought to the
Board's attention. Mrs. Girone stated we operate the system on a
user pay situation, and if you don't have water and sewer, tax
dollars are not involved. She stated that sometimes people say
that those who have septic tanks do not have expenses, but they
do if they maintain it, they paid for it, etc. and they are not
cost free.
Mr. Applegate expressed appreciation to Messrs. Welchons, Quaiff
Muzzy and Beck for reviewing the figures with the committee. He
stated he had talked with some of his constituents and the
84-481
committee as well felt the recommendations were proper. He stated
he would, however, like to make one change and make the effective
date October 1 rather than September 1 to give some of the people
who are at the mercy of a builder an opportunity to apply at the
lower rate. Mr. Mayes suggested January 1, 1985. Mr. Daniel
stated that October 1, 1984 would give those pending 30 days to
consider it. Mrs. Girone stated that this would destroy the
revenue projections and developers will come in and prepay. Mr.
Mayes inquired how it would affect the projects if the effective
date were January 1, 1985. Mr. Welchons stated on the sewer
connection fees it would involve about $60,000 per month. Mr.
Applegate stated he was concerned with some of the people who had
not been able to obtain the 70% in their area. Mrs. Girone
stated that it was her understanding that a project sent out for
survey today and had funds appropriated, that connection fees
would be at the old rate. Mr. Hedrick stated that was correct if
the contract was signed within the 30 day period. Mr. Welchons
stated the dollars involved in the water connection fees would
have a considerably less impact than the sewer. He stated staff
has been keeping in close contact with the homebuilders
associations and newsletters have gone out to the members that
the rates were going up. Mr. Mayes suggested that October 1 be
the effective date for sewer fees and January for the water fees.
Mr. Hedrick stated the reason for bringing this up to the Board
is to clear up the financial differential, as it is a financial
issue. He stated financially if it is prudent to raise the
rates, staff feels they should be effective September 1, 1984.
He stated, secondly, the past experience has been that whenever
we postpone the effective date of implementing these increases,
developers and individuals come in and prepay and this basically
underminds the reason for the rate increase.
Mr. Daniel stated many businesses when they offer price
increases, do not say it is the next time, and felt the Board
should offer a certain amount of time as a courtesy to allow the
applications to be submitted and suggested October 1 as the
effective date. Mrs. Girone stated this has been discussed most
of the summer and has been deferred for a month. She stated
September 1 would give 10 days for the people to come in as well
as maintain the figures staf~ has presented and she felt the
increase is fair. Mr. Applegate stated he was speaking more to
the water than the sewer as he has a constituency in the southern
end of Clover Hill District who has been waiting for a developer
to put in a water in front of their homes so they can connect but
the area has not been surveyed and the developer has not put in
the line. He stated he felt this was unfair for these people to
pay $1,000 when they have been waiting all summer to connect.~.
Mrs. Girone stated the County Administrator could take this into
consideration and it could be handled administratively. Mr.
Hedrick stated that a particular case in Midlothian District was
handled that way because it was a matter of sending the contracts
out and getting them back in the 30 day Period and they had gone
out under the old rate but in ~his case, if the rates in the
contract are new that would be the rate to be applied.
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
adopted the following ordinance:
AN ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE CODE OF THE
COUNTY OF CHESTERFIELD, 1978, AS AMENDED, BY
AMENDING SECTIONS 20-7 AND 20-27 RELATING TO
CONNECTION FEES FOR THE SEWER AND WATER SYSTEM
BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of Supervisors of Chesterfield
County:
(1) That Sections .20-7 and 20-27 of the Code of the County
of Chesterfield, 1978, as amended, are amended and reenacted as
follows:
84-482
Sec. 20-7 Connection Fees - Generally.
(a) Connection fees for water for existing and new single
family residences, duplexes and townhouses connecting to lines
not installed by the developer of the property shall be:
(1) For the five-eighths-inch meter with
three-fourths-inch pipe, the fee shall be one thousand dollars.
(2) For the five-eighths-inch meter with one-inch
pipe, the fee shall be one thousand and ten dollars.
(3) For the one-inch meter ~with one-inch pipe, the fee
shall be one thousand and seventy dollars.
(4) For the one-inch meter with one and one-half-inch
pipe, the fee shall be one thousand one hundred and thirty
dollars.
(5) For the one and one-half-inch meter with one and
one-half-inch pipe, the fee shall be one thousand one hundred and
seventy dollars.
(6) For the one and one-half-inch meter with two-inch
pipe, the fee shall be one thousand one hundred and seventy
dollars.
(7) For the two-inch meter with two-inch pipe, the fee
shall be one thousand two hundred and ten dollars.
(b) Except as provided in subsection (a) herein connection
fees for water in the County shall be based on meter size as
determined by the County in accordance with the following
schedule:
(1) For the five-eights-inch meter with
three-fourths-inch pipe, the fee shall be five hundred dollars.
(2) For the five-eights-inch meter with one-inch pipe,
the fee shall be five hundred and ten dollars.
(3) For the one-inch meter with one-inch pipe, the fee
shall be five hundred and seventy dollars.
(4) For the one-inch meter with one and one-half-inch
pipe, the fee shall be six hundred and thirty dollars.
(5) For the one and one-half-inch meter with one and
one-half-inch pipe, the fee shall be six hundred and seventy
dollars.
(6) For the one and one-half-inch meter with two-inch
pipe, the fee shall be six hundred and seventy dollars.
(7) For the two-inch meter with two-inch pipe, the fee
shall be seven hundred and ten dollars.
(8) Ail services over two inches in size shall be
installed for such charges as shall be determined at the time of
application.
(9) For a meter serving one unit or serving more than
one unit the connection fee shall be the basic meter charge plus:
Type Per Unit Fee
(a) Single family, duplexes each Basic meter
and townhouses charge
(b) Apartments, condominiums
each $200.00
84-483
(c)
a. Mobile home park (multiple) each
b. Mobile home park (individual) each
$200.00
Basic meter
charge
(d) Hotel, motel, and travel each
trailer camp
$100.00
(e) Hospital each bed
$200.00
(f) Nursing homes and residential each bed
institutional users
$150.00
(g) Commercial, industrial and each
public buildings
Basic meter
charge
(h) Homes for adults as defined each
in Section 63.1-172 of the
Code of Virginia, boarding
houses and rooming houses
Basic meter
charge or
$50.00 per
bed,
whichever
is greater
(2) This ordinance shall be effective October 1, 1984.
Sec. 20-27. Same--charges--generally.
Connection charges for sewer treatment in county shall be as
follows:
(a) Single-family -
(1) Existing residence, already having a septic tank
system when application is made within time allotted by county
after notice that sewer service is available, two thousand one
hundred and fifty dollars; two thousand five hundred dollars
effective July 1, 1985; two thousand seven hundred and fifty
dollars effective July 1, 1986; and three thousand dollars
effective July 1, 1987.
(2) New residence whose service is connected to sewer
installed by developer, one thousand eight hundred dollars; two
thousand one hundred dollars effective July 1, 1985; two thousand
three hundred dollars effective July 1, 1986; and two thousand
five hundred dollars effective July 1, 1987.
(3) Existing residence when application is not made
within the time allotted in a.1. above and new residence whos~
service is connected to sewer not installed by developer, two
thousand six hundred dollars; three thousand dollars effective
July 1, 1985; three thousand three hundred dollars effective July
1, 1986; and three thousand six hundred dollars effective July 1,
1987.
?
(b) Duplexes - Same as single-family residence for each
unit in the duplex.
(c) Mobile Homes not located in a mobile home park or
subdivision - Same as single-family residence.
(d) Churches - Same as single-family residence. When
churches are used for schools, kindergartens, etc. charges shall
be based on equivalent single-family units.
(e) Apartments, condominiums and townhouses, mobile home
parks and.subdivisions - Same as single-family residence per
unit.
(f) Travel trailer camps, hotels, motels - Six hundred
dollars per unit; seven hundred dollars per unit effective July
1, 1985; seven hundred and seventy dollars per unit effective
July 1, 1986; and eight hundred and thirty dollars per unit
effective July 1, 1987.
84-484
(g) Commercial, business, office, industrial and public
buildings - Meter size shall be approved by utilities department
as adequate to serve projected usage.
Water Meter
Size Effective Effective Effective Effective
(Inches) 9-1-84 7-1-85 7-1-86 7-1-87
5/8 $ 1,800 $ 2,100 $ 2,300 $ 2,500
1 3,000 3,500 3,840 4,120
1 1/2 6,000 7,000 7,650 8,350
2 12,000 14,000 15,300 16,200
3 24,000 28,000 30,600 33,400
4 50,000 58,350 63,900 69,500
6 110,000 128,370 140,600 152,800
8 275,000 320,900 351,500 382,500
Above 8 To be negotiated at time of application based upon
projected usage.
(h) Hospitals, nursing homes or homes for adults -
(1) Hospitals, nine hundred and sixty dollars per bed;
effective July 1, 1985 one thousand one hundred and twenty
dollars per bed; effective July 1, 1986 one thousand two hundred
and thirty dollars per bed; and effective July 1, 1987, one
thousand three hundred and thirty dollars per bed.
(2) Nursing Homes, six hundred dollars per bed;
effective July 1, 1985 seven hundred dollars per bed; effective
July 1, 1986 seven hundred and seventy dollars per bed; and
effective July 1, 1987 eight hundred and thirty dollars per bed.
(3) Homes for adults as defined in Section 63.1-172 of
the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, boarding houses and
rooming houses, three hundred dollars per bed; effective July 1,
1985 three hundred and fifty dollars per bed; effective July 1,
1986 three hundred and eighty five dollars per bed; and effective
July 1, 1987 four hundred and fifteen dollars per bed.
o o o
(2) This ordinance shall be effective September 1, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Mayes inquired if these rates would affect the Branders
Bridge, Bradley Bridge Road and Carver Home sites area water
extension. Mr. Daniel stated it would not affect that area. Mr.
Micas stated that was true if the residents sign up within the
applicable time for said contract.
Mr. Welchons stated a Mr. Nunnally was present and wished to
address the Board on Ballard Oaks Subdivision. Mr. Daniel stated
the County Attorney would have to rule in this matter.
9.E.3.a. REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT DRAINAGE CHANNEL AND SEWER LINE
Mr. Daniel inquired if this request from the developers of
Branch's Trace to construct drainage channels and sewer lines is
only on County property. Mr. McElfish stated the developers will
be constructing drainage and sewer lines on County property to
serve the Branch's Trace Development. Mr. Daniel inquired if
they would be serving any other property. Mr. McElfish stated
the drainage system will drain some of the County property and
will help eliminate the standing water on the curb on the way to
the Library. He stated this will ultimately provide drainage for
84-485
the property to the left or south of Lori Road. Mr. Daniel
suggested that this matter be deferred as he had talked to the
County Administrator regarding some of his concerns. Mr. Hedrick
~stated this allows the developer to proceed and provides the
easement so he can do the work. He stated the issue Mr. Daniel
had discussed would not be affected by this. On motion of Mr.
Daniel, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board authorized the developer
of Branch's Trace or his contractor to enter on County property
for the purpose of constructing the offsite sewer and drainage
facilities as shown on the sewer and drainage plans as long as
this did not involve questions referred to the County
Administrator. Mr. Hedrick stated Mr. Daniel's questions dealt
with the sizing of the drainage system not the routing of the
system. He stated these are easements, necessary to do the work
and if they are not utilized after it is worked out, then the
easements would not be necessary. Mr. Daniel stated as long as
this is not fixed in concrete, the amount of money, etc., he
could support the request.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.3.b. BLOCK ACCESS TO SEABOARD COASTLINE RAILROAD
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
authorized the Environmental Engineering Department to install
barricades and no trespassing signs at the intersection of the
right of way and Ecoff Avenue, Lee Street, and DeLavial Street at
a cost not to exceed $1,200.00 which funds are appropriated from
the Bermuda District 3¢ Road Fund.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.3.c. FENCE ACROSS PROPERTY IN VILLAGE OF BENSLEY
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved
the request from Mr..Joseph B. Jones, Jr., to allow a fence
across a 10' wide alley in the.Village of Bensley, subject to the
following conditions:
(1) That Mr. Jones maintain the gate in good working order to
allow easy passage.
(2) That no lock be placed on the gate to prevent passage.
(3) That in the event the County adopted a policy to construct
alleys and the need to improve this alley for vehicular traffic
arose, that Mr. Jones would have the fence removed at his
expense.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.3.d. CONDEMNATION ALONG BRADLEY BRIDGE ROAD
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
authorized the County Right of Way staff to begin the process to
acquire the easement necessary for drainage improvements along
Bradley Bridge Road from the estate o~ Junius Hancock by unknown
heirs condemnation.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Mayes .stated he felt this is not an emergency project and his
3¢ Road Funds are needed in an emergency area. He recommended
the funds be appropriated from the contingency account. The
84-486
Board indicated that the funds should come from the Matoaca 3¢
Road Funds and if the 3¢ Road Funds are used now and another
project is needed, the Board would consider assisting with
funding from the contingency at that time.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
appropriated $2,500 from the Matoaca District 3¢ Road Funds for
the acquisition of the necessary easement from Junius Hancock.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.3.e. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONVEY EAST AVENUE
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board set a
public hearing for September 26, 1984 at 9:00 a.m. to consider
the conveyance of right of way on East Avenue to the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.4. CONSENT ITEMS
9.E.4.a. WATER FACILITIES IN WILLIAM GWYN ESTATES, SECTION F
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following water contract:
Contract W84-132CD/6(8)4325, Water Facilities in William Gwyn
Estates - Section "F"
Developer: Phase I, Inc.
Contractor: Coastline Contractors, Inc.
Total Contract Cost: $38,317.00
Estimated County Cost:
Refund through connection: $ 5,576.00
Cash refund 8,992.50
Total Estimated County Cost: $14,568.50 $14,568.50
Number of Connections: 26
Code (Refund through connections) 559-1-00556-0000
And further the Board transferred $9,890.00 from 380-1-62000-7212
to 380-1-64325-7212 which includes a 10% contingency.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.4.b. SEWER CONTRACT FOR BRANCH'S TRACE
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for the following sewer contract:
Sewer Contract S84-123CD/7(8)4235 - Branch's Trace - Phase I
Developer: Mid-Atlantic Financial Group, Inc.
Contractor: R.M.C. Contractors, Inc.
Number of Connections:
Total Construction Cost:
Estimated County Cost:
Code: 574-1-00556-0000
Vote: Unanimous
57
$43,728.00
$1,848.30 (Refunds from connection fees
for oversized sewers)
84-487
9.E.4.c. SEWER CONTRACT FOR MORAVIA ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute any
necessary documents for Sewer Contract S84-71C/7(8)4711, Pierce
Property - Moravia Road Project to the low bidder, Best Backhoe
Excavating, Inc., in the amount of $5,702.99, and further the
Board transferred $1,000.00 from 574 surplus to 380-1-74711-4393.
It is noted the Board previously approved a $5,500.00
appropriation on May 9, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.4.d. ADJUSTMENT OF UTILITIES ON HOPKINS AND BEULAH ROADS
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute an
Agreement for adjusting utilities with the Virginia Department of
Highways and Transportation on Hopkins and Beulah Roads, Project:
0637-020-237, M502 subject to approval by the County Attorney.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.4.e. LEASE AGREEMENT FOR BRIGHT OAKS ESTATES
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
lease with Robert R. and Elendor C. Knoth for a well lot to serve
Bright Oaks Estates.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.4.f. ROUTE 60 AND ROUTE 147 DEVELOPERS FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
considered a request from the Rt. 60 and Rt. 147 Developers, for
County Contract S77-9CD/7(8)7092, and granted a one year
extension of time on the refund provision in the contract.
Vote: Unanimous
9.E.4.~. DEED OF DEDICATION ALONG SPRING RUN ROAD
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved and authorized the County Administrator to execute the
necessary deed, accepting on behalf of the County, a twenty (20)
foot wide strip of land along Spring Run Road west of Qualla Road
from William E. and Mary M. Allen (husband and wife). Map
Section: 92-2. -
Vote: Unanimous
9.F. REPORTS
Mr. Hedrick presented the Board with a report on the Contingency
account and on the County's Land Use Tax Program.
9.F. EXECUTIVE SESSION
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
went into Executive Session to consult with Legal Counsel
regarding HMK vs. Board of Supervisors pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (a) (6) of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended.
Vote: Unanimous
84-488
Reconvening:
It was generally agreed the Board would recess for lunch.
Reconvening:
9.A. BLUE CROSS/BLUE SHIELD RENEWAL PRESENTATION
Mr. Daniel stated earlier this date the Board deferred for two
weeks a decision on the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Contract Renewal
and other related insurance matters. He stated the Board has now
discovered there is an emergenCy situation which requires the
Board to act on this item today.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
declared the Blue Cross/Blue Shield Contract Renewal Item an
emergency item and resubmitted it for consideration by the Board
pursuant to the Board of Supervisors rules and procedures.
Vote: Unanimous
On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
approved the following plans to be offered to County employees:
Blue Cross/Blue Shield comprehensive major medical plan
(currently in effect) with a 20% premium increase. This plan
will remain the County's primary health care plan.
PruCare of Richmond plan (currently in effect) with a 9.2%
premium increase.
3. The United Medical Plan of Virginia (new).
4. Blue Cross/Blue Shield KeyCare (new).
And further the Board appropriated $200,000 from the Contingency
account to cover the deficit for the current fiscal year for the
insurance program and directed the County Administrator to
completely analyze all of the insurance programs, options,
alternatives, employee input as to types of coverage, the
possibility of rising rates and submit a report back to the Board
within 60 days.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Daniel stated that pursuant to rules established by the
Board, the presiding officer of the meeting during mobile home
and rezoning requests is rotated and Mr. Dodd has declined the
opportunity at this meeting as he was attending another meeting
late the evening before. He stated he would be presiding instead
and explained the procedures for the afternoon session.
Mr. Dodd stated he is in the mobile home business, although not
directly involved with sales. He requested anyone purchasing a
!mobile home from his company to please so indicate in order that
he could excuse himself from the meeting to prevent any conflict
of interest.
H. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES
84S164
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Wade and Karen Davis requested
renewal of a mobile home permit to park a mobile home on property
84-489
which belongs to Mr. Sam Shahda. Tax Map 67-12 (4) Bellwood
Addition, Block B, Lots 24 and 25 and better known as 2523 Dwight
Avenue (Sheet 23).
Ms. Davis was present. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Dodd stated that although he understands staff's concerns and its
recommendation for denial, there are some extenuating
circumstances and hardship involved. On motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request for a
period of five years subject to the following conditions and
waived the policy with regard to rental of a mobile home in this
case:
Only one (1) mobile home Shall be permitted to be parked on
an individual lot or parcel.
The minimum lot size, yard setbacks, required front yard,
and other zoning requirements of the applicable zoning
district shall be complied with, except that no mobile home
shall be located closer than 20 feet to any existing
residence.
No additional permanent-type living space may be added onto
a mobile home. All mobile homes shall be skirted but shall
not be placed on a permanent foundation.
Where public (County) water and/or sewer are available, they
shall be used.
Upon being granted a Mobile Home Permit, the applicant shall
then obtain the necessary permits from the Office of the
Building Official. This shall be done prior to the
installation or relocation of the mobile home.
Any violation of the above conditions shall be grounds for
revocation of the Mobile Home Permit.
Vote: Unanimous
84S165
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Clayton L. Ramey requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he
owns. Tax Map 81-16 (5) Central Park, Block 9, Lots 33 and 34
and better known as 10032 Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 23).
Mr. Ramey was not present. There was no opposition present. It
was generally agreed that this case be deferred until the end of
the agenda to allow the applicant time to be present.
84S166
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Sarah E. Madison requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to Clayton Ramey, son of the applicant. Tax Map 81-16
(5) Central Park, Block 9, Lots 35-36 and better known as 10030
Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 23).
Ms. Madison was not present. There was no opposition present. It
was generally agreed that this case be deferred until the end of
the agenda to allow the applicant time to be present.
I. REQUESTS FOR REZONING
.84S101
In Dale Magisterial District, CHESTERFIELD TOWING, INC. requested
a Conditional Use to permit a motor vehicle towing and repair
business in an Agricultural (A) District on a 2.61 acre parcel
fronting approximately 470 feet on the east line of Hopkins Road
84-490
at its intersection with Laurel Oak Road. Tax Map 81-5 (1)
Parcel 19 and Tax Map 81-9 (1) Parcel 13 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Balderson stated the applicant had requested a six month
deferral in order that they might seek relocation of the business
in question. He stated if that were accomplished within that six
months, there would be no reason to pursue this request further.
Mr. Charles Huntley, representing Chesterfield Towing, Inc., was
present and concurred with the statements made by Mr. Balderson.
There was a lady present who inquired about the deferral. Mr.
Daniel stated the deferral will allow'the applicant to still
occupy the premise but they will be relocating during that time.
Mr. Huntley stated that was the case.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
deferred this case until February 27, 1985.
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Danie~ inquired if the Board could consider requests for
deferrals from anyone other than the applicant. Mr. Micas stated
the Board could consider requests of those other than the
applicant but it is at the discretion of the Chairman. He stated
the normal request is from the applicant but there is nothing to
prevent the Board from granting a deferral requested by anyone.
84Sl12
In Matoaca Magisterial District, GLENN M. HILL requested rezoning
from Residential (R-15) to Residential (R-9) on a 16.8 acre
parcel fronting approximately 1,060 feet on the west line of
Bailey Bridge Road, also fronting approximately 80 feet on North
Bailey Bridge Road and located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of these roads. Tax Map 63-9 (1) Part of Parcel 8
(Sheets 20 and 21).
Ms. Quarles, a resident of Swift Creek Farms, requested deferral
of this case because on August 13, 1984, the residents met with
the Matoaca District Advisory Committee and expressed their
concerns regarding this matter. She stated they agreed to
appoint a committee to meet with Mr. Hill and members of Swift
Creek Farms in order to discuss rezoning and development of this
land and to try to reach an agreement. Mr. Mayes stated he was
aware of this and he recommended approval of a deferral. Ms.
Quarles requested that it be deferred to a night meeting. Mr.
Daniel stated all zoning is held in the afternoon. Mr. Daniel
called three times to see if the applicant were present and no
one responded.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board deferred
this request until September 26, 1984.
Vote: Unanimous
84S001
In Bermuda Magisterial District, THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
requested rezoning from Residential (R-9) to Residential (R-15)
on a 40.5 acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet on the west
line of Woods Edge Road, approximately 820 feet south of Lawing
Drive. Tax Map 134-5 (1) Parcels 5 and 6 (Sheet 42).
84-491
Mr. Balderson stated this request was initiated by the Board of
Supervisors because the Supervisor of the District requested a
new hearing of the case which was approved in the early part of
the year. He stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to a single condition. Mr.
Vance, the property owner, was present and stated this was
acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this request
subject to the following condition:
A 100 foot buffer shall be maintained in its natural state
along the western property line. Where necessary to provide
adequate screening, this ~buffer shall be planted according
to the "Minimum Guidelines for Landscaped Buffers." (p)
Vote: Unanimous
84S093
In Matoaca Magisterial District, THREE SIXTY ASSOCIATES requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) and General Business (B-3) to
Residential (R-9) and Convenience Business (B-i) plus Conditional
Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk exceptions on a
32.81 acre parcel. This request fronts the south line of Hull
Street Road in two places with a total of approximately 1,520
feet of frontage and is located across from Old Hundred Road.
Tax Map 62-6 (1) Parcel 16, Tax Map 62-9 (1) Part of Parcel 1 and
Tax Map 62-10 (1) Parcels 1, 2, 9 and 20 (Sheet 20).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions, including
an amended condition (2.a.) which he presented. Mr. Clarke
Plaxco was present representing the applicant. He stated that
while Brandermill controls the entire parcel, it will be actually
developed in two segments. He stated the commercial segment will
be developed by Brandermill at a later date and the residential
portion will be developed as soon as possible by Oxford
Development Company. He introduced John Slydell of Oxford who
outlined their credentials, their development commitments, and
the proposed development's architecture, cost, etc. Mr. Plaxco
stated condition 92 has been altered to read more clearly and
they are in agreement with that but they are concerned with the
requirement for the traffic signal modifications by the
developer. He stated the developer has agreed to provide up to
$10,000 for improvements to the traffic signal. He stated they
feel it is an unfair burden to pay the entire cost as it could
cost between $20,000-$60,000. He stated because of a directive
from the Planning staff and because of good planning practices,
they aligned Old Hundred Road and the entrance to this project
which ultimately will become ~ road feeding to other parcels. He
stated the property could have,been accessed other ways and if
there were no traffic signal there, one would not be needed. He
stated the Planning Commission agreed to limit the Koger
development's responsibility, and they are developing 750,000
square feet of office space, to only $50,000 to provide a new
signal system. He stated the relative scale of the projects
indicates the applicant's generosity to provide $10,000. Mrs.
Girone inquired what it would cost to upgrade the signal light.
Mr. Balderson stated a new signal light would cost
$50,000-$60,000 but he did not know what it would cost to upgrade
the existing system. Mr. Daniel stated they may take those
lights down, use them elsewhere, bring in new lights for this
area or change the computer system to operate them. Mr. Plaxco
stated the developers main concern is that it is open ended with
no ceiling as to the cost.
Mr. W. C. Cheatham stated he did not oppose the rezoning of the
property as long as it does not eventually, either directly or
indirectly, close Tomahawk Drive or the crossover on
84-492
Route 360. He stated this road is very crucial to the proper
development of his property, his cousin's property on the north
side of Route 360 as well as the Tomahawk Baptist Church. He
stated he talked with the Highway Department and they have no
plans to close Tomahawk Drive, he also referred to the Route 288
maps which are the Department's latest plans and they have no
plans to change them, and the Planning staff at the July 17, 1984
meeting indicated the same thing. He stated he was concerned
because he has heard various plans mentioned. He stated the
developers had once expressed an interest in an access road
through his property that might tie into Tomahawk Drive and he
has no problem with that as long as he has final say as to time
of construction and location. He stated on behalf of the
Tomahawk Church, Milton Cheatham and himself, he requested that
the Board consider and honor his request as far as maintaining
Tomahawk Drive as it is today without rerouting it or closing it.
Mr. Balderson stated no one in the County has raised the issue of
closing Tomahawk Drive and there appears to be no reason to close
it and it is not a salient point in this case. Mr. Applegate
inquired how Route 288 enters into the matter. Mr. Balderson
indicated the direction on the map. Mr. Daniel stated that if
this is a Route 288 issue and right of way question, staff should
meet with Mr. Cheatham to discuss how this may impact his
property. It was generally agreed this was not relative to this
case as this is a land use question and if there are highway
matters under discussion in the area, they should be addressed
with staff. Mr. Cheatham stated this also dealt with the
increased traffic flow in the area with the development of this
parcel. Mr. Daniel stated that the Board has taken a position
that any time major intersections of the major arterials, all
areas are to be serviced in a most effective manner, without
landlocking or that potential. The Board reviewed the staff
report discussing Tomahawk Drive and the possibility of a
cul-de-sac, etc. but indicated this is not a part of this zoning.
Mr. Hedrick indicated that any changes for Tomahawk Drive would
be held through a public hearing process. Mr. Applegate stated
that Route 288 would be a determining factor as to closing or
cul-de-sacing Tomahawk Drive, not the zoning case. Mr. Cheatham
stated the Highway Department wants to leave the plans as they
are and leave Tomahawk Drive open and he requested the Board's
support to do the same thing. There was no one else to speak.
Mr. Mayes stated he would have to recommend deferral if the
conditions were to be changed as requested by the applicant. Mr.
Plaxco stated they would just like a ceiling figure on what the
developer would be responsible for on the traffic signal. Mr.
McCracken stated he felt $60,000 would be adequate and it
probably would be less than that amount. Mr. Plaxco indicated
that would not be acceptable. Mr. Balderson stated the developer
wanted to pay half of the minimum which would be $10,000 but
staff's recommendation is that they pay the entire cost. Mr.
Applegate inquired about the location of the traffic light. He
stated it appeared that the road is directly across from
Brandermill Parkway and inquired why it would cost $60,000 to
improve that signal. Mr. McCracken stated $60,000 may be high
but he is not sure of the adjustments needed to the equipment but
what they are asking is for the developer to be responsible for
whatever improvements are necessary to accommodate the traffic
for that site. Mrs. Girone and Mr. Applegate indicated they
could not believe improvements could cost $50,000-$60,000. Mrs.
Girone stated if improvements are necessary because of this
development and if the developer does not pay, then the taxpayers
will, so she felt the condition in the paper was appropriate.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
1. The following conditions notwithstanding, the revised plan
prepared by Land Design/Research, Inc., dated May 8, 1984,
and the textual statement submitted with the application,
shall be considered the plan of development. (p)
2. In conjunction with the first schematic plan submission,
plans shall be submitted showing the following improvements
to Route 360:
84-493
e
e
Additional pavement shall be provided along Route 360,
west of the entrance road, for a turn lane. Additional
pavement shall be provided along Route 360 for the
entire property frontage, east of the entrance road.
This plan may show phasing of improvements based on
traffic generations of each development phase. This
condition may be modified by the Planning Commission at
the time of schematic plan review if a traffic analysis
indicates that less widening will accommodate the de-
velopment traffic.
be
Modification of existing crossover to accommodate left
turn lane.
Alignment of proposed public road with Old Hundred
Road.
de
Modification and/or adjustments to existing traffic
control signals and supporting equipment. The
developer shall be responsible for the cost of any
necessary improvements required by approved plans.
(T)
The proposed public road shall have a minimum right of way
width of ninety (90) feet. This road shall be constructed
with a minimum of two (2) twenty-four (24) foot lanes, which
shall be divided by a median. There shall be no access or
crossovers along this road within 165 feet of the
northwestern property line. Access to the commercial tract
shall align with access to the multifamily tract unless
modified through schematic plan approval. Prior to the
release of any building permits, road and drainage plans
shall be approved and right of way recorded by subdivision
plat. (T)
Construction of the public road may be phased based on
phasing of development. Prior to the release of any
building permits for more than fifty (50) multifamily
units, or for more than 30,000 square feet of commer-
cial space, the public road shall be constructed to the
ultimate four (4) lane typical section. (T)
Other than the proposed public road, there shall be no other
access to Route 360 from the multifamily tract. One (1)
access point, other than the proposed public road, shall be
permitted to the commercial tract provided the access is.
located and designed to provide future access into adjacent
property to the east. (T)
General Conditions 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16 and 17; Multifamily
Conditions 7 and 9; and Community Shopping Required
Condition 3 of the Textua~ Statement shall be deleted. (P)
Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign package to
include typical sizes, colors, design, lighting, etc. shall
be submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. The
Planning Commission shall have the authority to modify the
Zoning Ordinance sign requirements. (P)
(This condition supersedes General Condition 13 of the Tex-
tual Statement.)
Within the multifamily tract, the following recreational
facilities shall be constructed:
Two (2) tennis courts shall be constructed and op-
erational prior to the release of the 102nd occupancy
permit.
84-494
be
A swimming pool and club house shall be constructed and
operational prior to the release of the 200th occupancy
permit.
(The Planning Commission may modify these requirements
through schematic plan review.) (P)
10.
11.
BUFFERS
Except for the boundaries adjacent to the proposed
public road, a fifty (50) foot buffer shall be provided
along all property lines. Except along Route 360, the
fifty (50) foot buffer shall consist of vegetation,
fencing, berming or natural features which effectively
screen the uses from adjacent properties. The Route
360 frontage shall be landscaped to minimize visibility
of the multifamily project and driveways and parking
areas in the commercial tract. If, at the time of
schematic plan review, adjacent properties have been
zoned and/or developed for similar uses, the Planning
Commission may modify these buffer requirements.
be
A twenty-five (25) foot buffer shall be maintained
along both sides of the proposed public road. This
buffer shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and
shrubs.
Ce
Other than permitted signs and access points, there
shall be no facilities permitted in these buffer areas.
A plan for treatment of buffers shall be submitted to
the Planning Department for approval in conjunction
with final site plan submission.
(This condition supersedes Multifamily Condition 13 and Com-
munity Shopping Required Condition 1 of the Textual
Statement.) (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas in the
multifamily and commercial tracts. Drainage shall be
designed so as not to interfere with pedestrian access.
(This condition supersedes Multifamily Condition 14 of the
Textual Statement.) (EE)
The following uses shall not be permitted in the Community
Shopping tract:
Se
Private garages, garden, tool and storage buildings,
boat houses, piers and docks
b. Home occupations
c. Tennis courts and similar recreation facilities
d. Swimming pools and adjoining deck areas
(This condition supersedes Community Shopping, Uses Permit-
ted 6, 7, 8 and 9 of the Textual Statement.) (P)
12.
Within the Community Shopping tract, boat sales shall be
permitted, provided there is no outside storage or display.
(This condition supersedes Community Shopping, Uses Permit-
ted, Use Exceptions 6.) (P)
84-495
13.
Within the Community Shopping tract, parking areas shall be
landscaped to break up expanses of driveways and parking
areas. A landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with final site plan review. (P)
14.
Within the multifamily tract, driveways and parking areas
shall be designed to provide at least two (2) access points
into each fifty (50) unit cluster for emergency vehicles.
(p)
15.
Acreages specified in chart 1 of the Textual Statement may
be increased or decreased by 10%, as permitted in the
Textual Statement, provided the density for the multifamily
tract does not exceed 12.5 units per acre. (P)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Applegate because of the traffic signal
improvement cost assessed the developer.
84S094
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JEAN R. JOYNER requested a
Conditional Use to permit a family day care home in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 7.0 acre parcel fronting
approximately 767 feet on the north line of Spruce Avenue, ap-
proximately 320 feet southwest of Hubert Lane. Tax Map 136-5 (5)
Poplar Hills, Lot A and Tax Map 136-9 (9) Poplar Hills, Lot B
(Sheet 43).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Ms. Joyner was present
and inquired if the first condition had been changed to read
"Jean R. and Laverne Joyner". Mr. Dodd indicated it had been
revised to reflect that verbiage. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
This Conditional Use shall be granted to and for Jean R. and
Laverne Joyner and shall not be transferable nor run with
the land. (P)
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by R.T. Donahue, dated 3/27/84, shall be considered the plan
of development. (P)
e
The existing vegetation along the northeast property line
(i.e., adjacent to Tax Map 136-5 (2) Popular Hills, Lots 3
and 4) shall be maintained. (P)
Hours of operation shall be limited to between 6:00 a.m. and
6:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. There shall be no
Saturday or Sunday operation. (P)
5. No more than thirty (30) children shall be enrolled. (P)
One sign, not to exceed four (4) square feet in area, shall
be permitted identifying this use. This sign shall not be
lighted. The sign's facades shall be of subdued colors.
(P)
(Note: Prior to obtaining a building permit, site plans
must be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.)
Vote: Unanimous
84-496
84S095
In Midlothian Magisterial District, GULF OIL COMPANY requested
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a motor vehicle
wash in a Community Business (B-2) District on a 1.2 acre parcel
fronting approximately 200 feet on the north line of Midlothian
Turnpike, also fronting approximately 250 feet on North Pinetta
Drive and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection
of these roads. Tax Map 18-13 (1) Parcel 12 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr. Jim
Hayes was present representing the applicant and stated two
representatives of Gulf met with the Brighton Green Civic
Association and resolved their concerns and they indicated there
would not be opposition to this request. He stated this is an
automated car wash identical to the one at Courthouse Road and
Route 60 which would require no additional access to Pinetta and
would have less traffic impact than what staff indicated. Mr.
Daniel inquired how this compared to the car wash approved last
zoning meeting. Mrs. Girone stated that was strictly a car wash
and nothing else and this is an adjunct to an existing service
station. She stated residents of Brighton Green called her and
were concerned there would be a new driveway out onto Plnetta and
the site is across from the new Bon Air Post Office, soon to be
constructed, and traffic is a major concern of the North Pinetta
Drive residents. She stated this should not add to the traffic
situation as the same people using the service station will
probably use the car wash. She stated the citizens called and
did not have objections after the meeting. There was no
opposition present.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board
approved this request subject to the following condition:
The plan prepared by J. K. Timmons and Associates, Inc.,
dated February 3, 1984, shall be considered the Master Plan.
Vote: Unanimous
84S097
In Bermuda Magisterial District, BERNARD GARY NUNNALLY requested
rezoning from Community Business (B-2) to General Business (B-3)
on a 0.63 acre parcel fronting approximately 110 feet on the west
line of Jefferson Davis Highway, also fronting approximately 110
feet on the east line of Perrymont Road approximately 570 feet
north of Willis Road. Tax Map 81-8 (1) Parcel 17 (Sheet 23).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to a single condition. Mr.
Tommy Gordon was present representing the applicant. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs.
Girone, the Board approved this request subject to the following
condition:
A fifteen (15) foot buffer shall be maintained along Perry-
mont Road. Other than landscaping and/or fencing, there
shall be no facilities permitted within this buffer area.
(p)
Vote: Unanimous
84S098
In Bermuda Magisterial District, JOHN H. INGRAM requested
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a 5 foot exception
to the required 15 foot parking setback in a General Business
(B-3) District on a 3.54 acre parcel fronting approximately 849
feet on the east line of Burge Avenue, approximately 660 feet
84-497
south of Willis Road.
23).
Tax Map 82-5 (1) Part of Parcel 6 (Sheet
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Ingram was present. There was no opposition present. On motion
of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board approved this
request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Bass Steel Buildings Corp., revised June 29, 1984, shall
be considered the Master Plan. (P)
In conjunction with final site plan submission, a land-
scaping and berming plan for the setback area along Burge
Avenue shall be submitted to the Planning Department for
approval. Landscaping shall consist of ornamental trees and
shrubs. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes-
trian access. (EE)
In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning
Commission shall grant schematic plan approval subject to
"parking space #1," as shown on the Master Plan being
deleted. (P)
Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires an eight (8) foot high
solid board fence or wall to be erected along the entire
length of the eastern property line adjacent to residential
zoning. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Dodd excused himself from the meeting.
84S099
In Matoaca Magisterial District, THOMAS E. AND BARBARA M. DANCE
requested a Conditional Use to permit a second dwelling on one
parcel of land in an Agricultural (A) District on a 1.56 acre
parcel fronting approximately 170 feet on the west line of Qualla
Road, approximately 120 feet north of Chesmount Drive. Tax Map
92-8 (1) Parcel 16 (Sheets 29 and 30).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Ms. Dance
was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Applegate
inquired if Ms. Dance understood this property could not be
rented. Ms. Dance stated that~was understood.
On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
Occupancy of the second dwelling unit shall be limited
exclusively to family members of the property owner. At no
time shall the unit be rented. (P)
The plan and renderings submitted with the application shall
be considered the plan of development. (P)
Ayes: Mr~ Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
84S100
In Matoaca Magisterial District, DANIEL A. PATROM requested
rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Residential (R-15) on a 0.87
84-498
acre parcel lying approximately 200 feet off the south line of
Centralia Road at its intersection with Shiloh Drive. Tax Map
96-8 (1) Parcel 11 (Sheet 31).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. Mr. Patrom was present. There was no
opposition present. On motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mrs.
Girone, the Board approved this request.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd returned to the meeting.
84S103
In Bermuda Magisterial District, J. HOWARD BRANDON requested
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a multifamily
dwelling (5 units) in a Residential (R-15) District plus bulk
exceptions. This request lies on a 0.75 acre parcel fronting ap-
proximately 103 feet on the northwest line of Osborne Road also
fronting approximately 186 feet on Cliff Lawn Drive, and located
in the northeast quadrant of the intersection of these roads.
Tax Map 98-13 (6) Chester Heights, Lots 116, 117 and 118 (Sheet
32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Brandon was present. There was no opposition present. Mr. Dodd
inquired if the conditions were acceptable to the applicant. Mr.
Brandon stated they were. Mr. Dodd stated this was one of the
most unusual cases he has had because it is an existing
non-conforming use that has been in existence since 1948 and
because the property transferred ownership, Mr. Bardon had to
apply for zoning, pay fees and spend a great deal of time and
effort. Mr. Daniel stated the case that was deferred earlier
today, was basically the same situation and they could not be
ignored. Mr. Dodd inquired about the grandfather clause. Mr.
Hedrick stated this approval would run with the property and if
it changes ownership, the use will stay. Mr. Balderson stated
the use was never legal and never was zoned. Mr. Micas stated
property cannot be grandfathered unless the original use was
legal. After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Dodd,
seconded by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board approve this
request subject to the following conditions:
This Conditional Use Planned Development shall be for a five
(5) unit multifamily dwelling. Other than normal
maintenance, there shall be no exterior additions or
alterations to the existing structure. (P)
The plan filed with the application shall be considered the
plan of development. The exceptions to number, size, paving
and setbacks for parking, as reflected on the plan, shall be
granted. (P)
In conjunction with approval of this request, the Planning
Commission shall grant schematic plan approval. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84S104
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, VIRGINIA FIRST SAVINGS AND
LOAN ASSOCIATION requested an amendment to a previously granted
Conditional Use Planned Development (Case 76S130) to permit a
recreation facility in a Residential (R-15) District on a 3.85
acre parcel fronting approximately 500 feet on the north line of
Lockhart Road also fronting approximately 250 feet on Libro Loop,
and located in the northwest quadrant of the intersection of
these roads. Tax Map 39-11 (1) Part of Parcel 82 (Sheet 14).
84-499
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Jeff
Collins, representing the applicant, stated the conditions were
acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
Applegate, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request
subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the Scheme 2 Plan
prepared by Wilson-Moreth, Landscape Architects, dated
1/11/84, shall be considered the Master Plan. Should the
recreational facilities not be constructed, single family
homes, as permitted by Conditional Use Planned Development
76S130, may be constructed. (P)
e
A minimum of four (4) parking spaces for each tennis court
and one (1) parking space for each ninety (90) square feet
of swimming and wading area shall be provided. (P)
Parking and driveway areas shall be delineated by concrete
curb and gutter. Drainage shall be designed so as not to
interfere with pedestrian access. (EE)
Hours of operation shall be limited to between 8:00 a.m. and
9:00 p.m., Sunday through Thursday and between 8:00 a.m. and
11:00 p.m., Friday and Saturday. (P)
Outdoor lighting shall be low level, not to exceed a height
of fifteen (15) feet and positioned so as not to project
into adjacent properties. A lighting plan shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with site plan review. (P)
A forty (40) foot buffer shall be maintained along the
western property line, adjacent to Bexley Cosmopolitan,
Phase IV, Block B, Lots 31 through 36. Within this
buffer a six (6) to seven (7) foot high earth berm
shall be installed. This berm shall have a maximum
slope of 3:1 and shall be landscaped.
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along all
other property lines. With the exception of a single access
to Rams Crossing and a sign, there shall be no facilities
permitted in these buffers. This buffer shall be landscaped
to minimize the visibility of the facilities from adjacent
properties.
®
A landscaping plan depicting these requirements shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for ~pproval in
conjunction with site plan review. (P)
One (1) sign, identifyin~this use, not to exceed eight (8)
square feet and a height 6f four (4) feet, shall be
permitted. The sign's facades shall be of subdued
colors and shall not be lighted. (P)
The above conditions notwithstanding, all applicable
conditions of Conditional Use Planned Development 76S130 and
of tentative subdivision for Bexley Cosmopolitan shall be
met. (p)
Vote: Unanimous
84S107
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CHARLES H. WILLIAMS
requested a Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 3.25 acre parcel fronting
approximately 370 feet on the north line of Genito Road,
approximately 370 feet east of Woolridge Road. Tax Map 46 (1)
Parcels 64, 65, 68 and 69 (Sheet 12).
84-500
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Williams indicated he was building a home for he and his mother.
There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr. Applegate,
seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to
the following conditions:
Occupancy of the second, accessory, dwelling unit shall be
limited, exclusively, to family members of the property
owner. At no time shall the unit be rented. (P)
m
The plan and renderings submitted with the application shall
be considered the plan of development. (P)
Within thirty (30) days after occupancy of the new
structure, the mobile home shall be removed from the
property. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
Mr. Applegate disclosed to the Board that he had a possible
conflict of interest regarding the next case and excused himself
from the meeting pursuant to the Virginia Comprehensive Conflict
of Interest Act.
84S108
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, SOUTHPORT DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Light
Industrial (M-l) plus a Conditional Use Planned Development to
permit use and bulk exceptions. This request lies on a 11.77
acre parcel fronting approximately 80 feet on the east line of
Branchway Road, approximately 280 feet north of Southlake Boule-
vard. Tax Map 17-13 (1) Parcels 6, 7, 8, 9 and Part of Parcels 5
and 10 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of the request subject to certain conditions. Mr. Rudy,
representing the applicant, stated the conditions were
acceptable. There was no opposition present. On motion of Mr.
Dodd, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board approved this request
subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Balzer and Associates, dated April 27, 1984, shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
Ail utility lines shall be provided with underground
distribution. (p)
3. Ail driveways and parking areas shall be paved. (P)
Ail private drives and entrances shall be paved to a width
of not less than 25 feet. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes-
trian access. (EE)
A buffer, not to exceed a width of thirty (30) feet, shall
be established along the western property line, adjacent to
Tax Map 17-13 (1) Part of Parcel 5 (Winder Property), if
deemed appropriate at the time of schematic plan review
(p) -
e
Ail uses located within 260 feet of Branc~way Road shall be
limited to offices. At the time of schematic plan review,
the Planning Commission may modify this condition. (p)
84-501
Thirty (30) feet of right of way, measured from the
centerline of Branchway Road, shall be dedicated to and for
the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior to
the issuance of any building permit. Additional pavement
and curb and gutter shall be installed along Branchway Road.
(T)
The proposed public road shall have a minimum right of way
of sixty (60) feet which shall be dedicated by subdivision
plat. The road shall be constructed to a width of forty
(40) feet, face of curb to face of curb. (T)
(Note: In conjunction with tentative subdivision approval
for the proposed road, a plat must be submitted which
verifies that the single family house located on the
adjacent property will not be in violation of setback
requirements upon dedication of right of way.)
10.
A stub road shall be dedicated from the east/west road,
northward. This road shall be dedicated by subdivision
plat. The exact location of this stub road shall be
determined by the Planning Commission in conjunction
with the first schematic plan review, or in conjunction
with review of the subdivision plat to dedicate the
east/west road. (CPC)
11.
The developer shall provide an accurate account of the
drainage situation showing existing drainage and the impact
this project will have on the site and surrounding area.
The developer shall submit a construction plan to
Environmental Engineering which will provide for on- and
off-site drainage control. This plan shall include re-
tention with a release rate equal to a two (2) year
pre-developed condition for a 50 year storm. If downstream
drainage improvements are needed, the release rate shall be
based on a 10 year storm. The plan shall explain the method
and show the facilities to be utilized in the hydraulic
engineering of this project. This plan shall be approved by
Environmental Engineering prior to the issuance of any
building permit and implemented prior to the issuance of any
occupancy permit. (EE)
12.
The developer shall submit a construction plan for erosion
and sediment control to Environmental Engineering. Such a
plan is to be comprised of vegetative and engineering
practices to be utilized as erosion and sediment control
measures for the project. The plan shall be approved prior
to disturbance of the soil, terrain, or existing vegetation.
(EE)
13.
The followIng requested use exceptions shall not be
permitted:
Auction sales or salvage barns
Outdoor advertising signs
Motor vehicles sales, service and repair
Building material sales yard
Farm implements and machinery sales, service,
rental and repair establishments (P)
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Dodd, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Absent: Mr. Applegate.
Mr. Applegate returned to the meeting.
84S109
In Midlothian Magisterial District, KOGER PROPERTIES, INC.
requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Office Business (O)
plus Conditional Use Planned Development to permit use and bulk
34-502
exceptions on a 61.8 acre parcel fronting approximately 850 feet
on the north line of Midlothian Turnpike at its intersection with
Southlake Boulevard. Tax Map 17-6 (1) Parcel 1 (Sheet 8).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. He
indicated there were several concerns raised by the applicant
dealing with internal and external traffic. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Phil Bruce, Vice President of Planning
and Development for Koger Properties, Inc., was present. He
outlined the Koger operations, their development and management
concepts, etc. He stated this proposed development would be of
the highest quality and they will do all possible to preserve all
existing values and that it will maintain the same standard of
excellence achieved in their 22 other office parks in the
southeast. He presented a rendering of the proposed development,
indicating the salvaging of as much of the vegetation as
possible. He reviewed the conditions of the Planning Commission
with the Board o~ which they would like changes to Condition ~6
by having a setback of fifteen feet rather than 30 feet from the
north/south road which will still allow at least 25 feet of green
space between the road and the parking lot and that they would
berm and landscape this strip to the extent that it does not
interfere with existing vegetation to be preserved; that although
they agree with the need of schematic approval, for the sake of
developmental flexibility, they requested that Condition #8 be
deleted or amended to read "on a phase by phase or building by
building basis"; they requested that Condition #9 be submitted to
the Planning staff rather than the Planning Commission for the
sign package; that Condition ll(b) be revised to delete the
requirement for the turn lane for the west bound traffic as this
improvement could be better accomplished by others; that
Condition #12.a. be amended that the right of way for the road be
85 feet and that parking lot setbacks from this right of way be
15 ft. as stated in condition 6; and that Condition #16 be
changed to read that this condition may be modified by the
Planning Commission at time of schematic plan review. There was
some concern as the conditions read by the applicant were not the
same as the report distributed to the Board. Mr. Balderson
stated the Planning Commission recommended that the original
Condition #13 be deleted which renumbered the conditions given to
the Board. Mr. Bruce introduced Mr. Flynn of Wilber Smith
Associates and Mr. Pike of J. K. Timmons and Associates who were
present.
Mrs. Girone reviewed the conditions with the applicant. Mr.
Applegate stated he did not feel the developer should pay a
portion of a traffic light when another applicant was required to
pay the full cost. Mrs. Girone stated that a policy should be
established that if development necessitates traffic lights or
changes to lights, that they will pay the full cost. Mr. Dodd
stated he felt this was a different situation as there was an
existing light in the other case and he is to pay the
improvements but here there is no light at all and he will pay
the entire cost. Mrs. Girone stated she felt this was correct as
there is a development across the street who will use the light.
Mr. Daniel stated this case established the need for a traffic
light. Mrs. Girone inquired if there were a requirement for a
traffic light in the Southport case. Mr. Balderson stated no,
and the County policy overall with respect to improvements by
developers at the time of Southport was not as sophisticated as
it is today and they were not assessed that cost. He stated,
however recently~ staff's recommendation is that if there is an
immediate contribution to the traffic situation that we assess a
portion of that cost to the developer. He stated if there is no
impact on the traffic situation existing, but the proposed
development would trigger that, we reco~nended that they pay the
whole cost. Mrs. Girone stated she just felt the Board should be
consistent.
On motion of Mrs. C~rone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
~4-503
e
e
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc., dated 4/27/84, the
textual statement and traffic analysis submitted with the
application, shall be considered the Master Plan. (P)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes-
trian access. (EE)
Except for land clearing activity necessary to construct the
proposed north/south road from Route 60 to its intersection
with the proposed east/west road, there shall be no land
clearing activity within the Routes 60/147 Drainage District
until a construction plan for drainage has been approved by
Environmental Engineering and all necessary requirements to
implement the plan have been obtained. (EE)
Parking areas shall have at least five (5) square feet of
interior landscaping for each space. Each landscaped area
shall contain a minimum fifty (50) square feet; shall have a
minimum dimension of at least five (5) feet; and shall
include at least one (1) tree, having a clear trunk of at
least five (5) feet. The remaining area shall be landscaped
with shrubs, ground cover or other authorized landscaping
material. The total number of trees shall not be less than
one (1) for each 200 square feet, or fraction thereof, of
required interior landscaped area. Landscaped areas shall
be located so as to divide and break up the expanse of
paving. The area designated as required setbacks shall not
be calculated as required landscaped area. Conceptual plans
depicting this requirement shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval in conjunction with final
site plan review. Detailed plans shall be submitted to the
Planning Department for approval upon completion of clearing
and rough grading. (P)
Within the required setback areas along internal public
right of way lines, landscaping shall be provided.
Landscaping shall include one (1) tree for each fifty
(50) linear feet, or fraction thereof. The remaining
area shall be planted with grass, ground cover, or
other landscape treatment, excluding pavement. Concep-
tual plans depicting this requirement shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department for approval in conjunc-
tion with final site plan review. Detailed plans shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval
upon completion of clearing and rough grading. (P)
There shall be a minimum setback of fifteen (15) feet along
the proposed north/south roadway. (P)
At the time of schematic plan review for Phase I, a
landscaping and/or berming plan shall be submitted for the
Midlothian Turnpike frontage. Within the requested
twenty-five (25) foot setback exception area landscap-
ing and/or berming, sufficient to screen the visibility
of driveways and parking areas from Midlothian
Turnpike, shall be installed. If the Planning
Commission determines that the plan does not insure
proper screening, the driveways and parking areas shall
be set back the required fifty (50) feet from the Mid-
lothian Turnpike right of way. (P)
Prior to erection of any signs, a complete sign package, to
include typical colors, sizes, lighting, etc., shall be
submitted to the Planning Staff for approval. Signs shall
comply with the requirements of the Office Business (O)
District, unless modified by the Planning Staff through
schematic plan approval. {P)
84-504
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
Vote:
In the event that VDH&T determines a traffic signal is
warranted at the intersection of Route 60 and the proposed
north/south road, the developer shall be responsible for the
cost of installation. (T)
In conjunction with schematic plan review or approval, the
developer shall submit a plan showing the following
improvements to VDH&T and the Transportation
Department:
Additional pavement and curb and gutter along Route 60
for the entire length of the property.
Left-turn lane(s) in the Route 60 median, for both
east- and westbound lanes of Route 60, at the in-
tersection with the north/south road.
These improvements shall be accomplished prior to the issu-
ance of any occupancy permits. (T)
In conjunction with schematic plan review or approval, the
developer shall submit a plan to VDH&T and the
Transportation Department showing the following im-
provements and the phasing of construction of these
improvements:
Se
The north/south road shall align with Southlake
Boulevard. The road shall, be designed to accommodate
"free" traffic movements without stop conditions, and
shall stub into the adjacent property to the west. All
internal public roads and private drives shall
intersect the north/south road in a "T". This road
shall have a minimum right of way of ninety (90) feet,
which shall be dedicated by subdivision plat. This
road shall have curb and gutter and shal~ be
constructed with a minimum of two (2) twenty-four (24)
foot lanes, divided by a minimum sixteen (16) foot
median. Turn lanes shall be constructed on the
north/south road at Route 60 and all crossovers. The
exact location of access points to the north/south road
shall be determined at the time of schematic plan
approval for each individual site.
Turn lanes shall be constructed on Johnston Willis
Drive at its intersection with the east/west road and
at its intersection with Route 60.
Prior to the release of building permits in excess of
750,000 square feet, Route 60 shall be constructed as a six
(6) lane facility from Providence Road to approximately 0.17
miles west of Huguenot Road. However, upon ninety (90)
percent occupancy of the initial 750,000 square feet
permitted herein, the developer may perform an analysis of
the traffic generated by the initial phase. The results of
this analysis may be used to project ultimate traffic
generations for the entire development. If this study re-
veals that additional square footage can be accommodated,
given traffic and road conditions at that time, the Planning
Commission may modify this condition. However, the total
square footage permitted shall not exceed 933,800. (CPC)
Except where specified herein, all public roads shall be
constructed to a width of forty (40) feet, face of curb to
face of curb. (T)
Other than the north/south road, there shall be no access to
Route 60. (T&P)
Unanimous
84-505
84Sl10
In Dale Magisterial District, SHARON AND HARRY WHITAKER, JR.
requested Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.31 acre parcel fronting
approximately 85 feet on the southeast line of Willesden Road,
approximately 350 feet northeast of Space Road. Tax Map 42-10
(1) Parcel 3 (Sheet 16).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of this request. Mr. Steve Bryant was present
representing the applicant. He stated that since this matter was
heard at the Planning Commission, they have collected petitions
signed by 21 different people who are in favor of this request.
He stated the proposal would enhance the area and it is
compatable with existing construction. Mr. Ernest Macke stated
his property is located directly across the street and he had
submitted a petition with 44 signatures opposing this request.
He stated on this street there are 19 single family homes of
which 16 of the owners signed his petition. He stated they were
opposed because of the encroachment into the R-7 residential
district, it is strictly an investment by the builder who will
not live there, it is not needed, etc. He stated he felt the
duplex will be directly over a drainage ditch, there are duplexes
in the area which have had a negative impact on the area, the
neighbors do not want additional duplexes, this is the last lot
between the residential homes and the duplexes which acts as a
divider, etc.
Mr. Daniel inquired if Mr. Macke's home was next door to a duplex
on the street. Mr. Macke stated it was. Mrs. Girone stated the
sketch indicates one door on the front with another on the side
and inquired if the others were the same. 'Mr. Balderson stated
the others had two doors facing the street. Mrs. Girone stated
this did not appear to be a duplex. Mr. Daniel stated no one had
contacted him and he was unaware of the opposition. He reviewed
the housing in the area which is single family as well as
duplexes and he reviewed the square footage of each. He stated he
understood the concerns of the citizens but there exists similar
zoning in the area but perhaps conditions could be applied to
eliminate some of the residents' fears. He requested that brick
and shutters be used in construction, that there be one entrance
on the side as proposed, that the applicant be responsible to see
that the area is maintained and that the duplex be 54 feet
provided it is not shorter than the others in the area. Mr.
Bryant stated the adjacent property to the north is single family
and he had received a letter of consent from them. Mr. Macke
stated the same landowner signed his petition opposing also, and
further expressed his concern that police are called to the area
often. Mr. Applegate inquired if the duplexes are owner
occupied. Mr. Macke stated one was. Mr~ .Daniel stated
situations like this are difficult as part of the neighborhood is
opposed and part is in favor of the proposal. He stated the
basic premise is the continuity of zoning and both duplexes and
single family residents are in the area.
On motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded by Mrs. Girone, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan submitted
with the application shall be considered the plan of
development. (p)
The driveways and parking areas shall be gravelled with a
minimum of six (6) inches of 21 or 2lA stone. Driveways and
parking areas shall be delineated by permanent means (i.e.,
timber curbs, etc.). (p)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires that a minimum of four
(4) parking spaces, having a minimum dimension of ten (10)
feet by twenty (20) feet each, be provided on the site.)
84-506
The structure shall have brick facades and windows shall
have shutters. The structure shall be at least 54 feet in
length. If other area duplexes are longer, this structure
shall be lengthened to equal the average length of other
area duplexes. (P&BS)
Prior to obtaining a building permit, a grading plan shall
be submitted to Environmental Engineering showing a swale
along the southern property line for proper drainage into
the existing culvert along Willesden Road. The southern
driveway and parking area may be relocated, if deemed
necessary by Environmental Engineering, to affect proper
drainage. (EE)
The structure and grounds shall be maintained to the same
standards as area single family homes. (BS)
Mr. Micas stated condition #5 is unenforceable and is a dangerous
and inappropriate precedent to begin placing long term maintenance
obligations as part of zoning conditions. Mr. Applegate stated
he felt there is a time when you have to have continuity but he
would lean more to single family rather than the duplex and he
could not support this motion. Mrs. Girone stated she felt the
precedent had been established since there are many duplexes
already there. Mr. Dodd stated the problem is the rental
property people maintaining their property and screening their
tenants.
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mrs. Girone and Mr. Mayes.
Abstention: Mr. Dodd.
Nays: Mr. Applegate.
84S113
In Clover Hill Magisterial District, CHARLES K. CLODFELTER
requested Conditional Use to permit a machine shop in an
Agricultural (A) District on a 1.25 acre parcel fronting ap-
proximately 178 feet on the south line of Genito Road, approxi-
mately 300 feet east of Warbro Road. Tax Map 48-3 (1) Part of
Parcel 6 (Sheet 13).
Mr. Balderson stated the Plannning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Clodfelter was present. On motion of Mr. Applegate, seconded by
Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this request subject to the
following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan prepared
by Potts and Minter, dated 5/11/84, shall be considered the
plan of development. (P)
A fifty (50) foot buffer shall be maintained along Genito
Road. Other than a single access drive and a sign, there
shall be no other facility within this buffer. This buffer
shall be landscaped with ornamental trees and shrubs. A
landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval in
conjunction with site plan submission. (p)
3. There shall be no outside storage. (P)
The building's facade shall employ subdued colors. Prior to
release of a building permit, color samples shall be
submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
One (1) sign, not to exceed eight (8) square feet in area,
shall be permitted. This sign shall employ subdued colors,
similar to the building facade. The sign shall not be
lighted. Prior to erection of the sign, colored renderings
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
(p)
84-507
o
Prior to release of a building permit, forty-five (45) feet
of right of way, measured from the centerline of Genito
Road, shall be dedicated to and for the County of
Chesterfield, free and unrestricted. (P)
e
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. (EE)
The access shall be designed and constructed to allow shared
use with adjacent property to the east, at such time as it
develops for commercial or industrial use. (T)~
e
The previous conditions notwithstanding, all bulk re-
quirements of the General Business (B-3) District shall
apply. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
84Sl14
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROBERT J. SEARCY requested a
Conditional Use to permit two, two-family dwellings in a
Residential (R-7) District on a 0.9 acre parcel fronting ap-
proximately 270 feet on the north line of South Street across
from Mistora Road. Tax Map 163-1 (3) Ivey Tract, Block B, Lot
38B and Tax Map 163-1 (4) Resubdivision of Lots 1 and 2, Ivey
Tract, Block B, Part of Lots 1 and 2 (Sheets 41 and 49).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request subject to certain conditions. Mr.
Searcy was present. There was no opposition present. On motion
of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved this
request subject to the following conditions:
The following conditions notwithstanding, the plan filed
with the application, revised 5/15/84, shall be considered
the plan of development. (P)
Driveways and parking areas shall be gravelled with a
minimum of six (6) inches of 21 or 2lA stone. Driveways and
parking areas shall be delineated by permanent means (i.e.,
timber curbs, etc.) All parking areas and driveways, except
for the driveway connections to South Street, shall be set
back a minimum of fifteen (15) feet from the right of way.
(p)
(Note: The Zoning Ordinance requires a minimum of 1.8 park-
ing spaces for each dwelling unit (i.e., a total of seven
for this ~equest). These spaces must be a minimum of ten
(10) feet by twenty (20) ~feet each.
The driveway on Parcel A shall have a minimum width of
twenty-four (24) feet to allow two-way traffic flow from the
parking area. (P)
In conjunction with building permit application, a site plan
shall be submitted reflecting the conditions stated herein.
(p)
Vote: Unanimous
84S115
In Matoaca Magisterial District, ROBERT J. SEARCY requested a
Conditional Use to permit a two-family dwelling in a Residential
(R-7) District on a 0.4 acre parcel fronting approximately 82
feet on the west line of Harrowgate Road, approximately 150 feet
north of South Street. Tax Map 163-1 (1) Parcel 2 (Sheet 49).
84-508
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval subject to certain conditions. Mr. Searcy was present.
Mr. John Fry stated he was concerned there was not enough
property on which to build this duplex as there is a right of way
to another property behind this property. He added also, the
parking would be in the front of the duplex causing additional
problems and block the view of the families living on both sides.
Mr. Balderson explained there were two right of way issues
involved in this case, one being a public right of way and
another being a private easement. Mr. Mayes inquired if the 12
ft. easement has been used continuously for access to the back
property. Mr. Searcy stated the Garners were selling their
property and asked that he donate an easement along the side in
order that it could be used for access so they could sell. Mr.
Micas stated if the matter of access to this general area is
impacted by this decision, the Board might defer this for a staff
report as to what impact if any, this development will have on
access generally. He stated generally private disputes about
easements should not be considered as part of a land use
decision. Mr. Searcy stated he had a survey plat of the property
and would present it to staff. After further discussion, it was
on motion of Mr. Mayes, seconded by Mr. Dodd, resolved that the
Board defer this case until September 26, 1984 for a staff report
on the easement situation.
Vote: Unanimous
84Sl16
In Bermuda Magisterial District, ELLIS Y. COLEMAN requested
Conditional Use Planned Development to permit a real estate and
contracting business and bulk exceptions in a Residential (R-7)
District on a 0.26 acre parcel fronting approximately 55 feet on
the west line of Harrowgate Road, also fronting approximately 105
feet on the north line of Shop Street and located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of these roads. Tax Map
115-10 (15) Snead-Curtis Addition, Resubdivision of Lots 37 and
38, Lot 115 (Sheet 32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
denial of the request. Mr. Ronald Hudson, representing Mr.
Coleman, was present. He stated Mr. Coleman has operated for a
short period of time a real estate and contractor's office at this
location. He stated it was a small company and he owns the
building which he has improved tremendously. He stated there was
a special exception for this building for an antique shop and
this would not set a precedent for commercial zoning as indicated
in the staff report. He stated Mr. Coleman would be agreeable to
screening, etc. and would use this until such time as other
facilities are made available. He stated if this is not
approved, they would need time to complete operations at the site.
Mr. Paul McCoo and Mr. Pat Poulsen, area residents, stated their
opposition to the approval of the request because of the
residential character of the community which they wanted
maintained, the hazardous and safety conditions of traffic which
is generated by the business, the traffic congestion of Shop
Street and Harrowgate Road, the parking of vehicles off of the
pavement, that 61 people in the area are opposed per the petition
presented to the Planning Commission, that children use the
library which is in the immediate area and this business presents
safety problems, the police have been called as the vehicles
block the roadway and that this business was started without
proper approval.
Mr. Dodd stated he felt this was improper use of the land and
had a different approach been used, something may have been
worked out but as it is there is no compromise. He stated he
felt four months would be adequate to relocate their business.
84-509
Mr. Micas requested that the four months time period not be made
part of the motion tor denial. On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded
by Mr. Applegate, the Board denied the request and authorized the
County Administrator to work with the applicant for a reasonable
amount of time (approximately 4 months) to relocate his business
and cease operation.
Vote: Unanimous
84S117
In Dale Magisterial District, 'LaVERNE~C. COLE AND JAMES T.
WADDILL, IV requested rezoning from Agricultural (A) to Res-
idential (R-12) on a 28.2 acre parcel fronting approximately 70
feet on the north line of Old Lane at its intersection with
Hopkins Road. Tax Map 81-13 (1) Part of Parcel 2 (Sheets 23 and
32).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission had recommended
approval of this request. There was no opposition present. Mr.
Alex Sadler was present representing the applicant. Mr. Daniel
inquired about the road plans and the extension of Hopkins Road
through this property. Mr. Balderson stated the Highway plans
for Hopkins Road years ago proposed an alignment of the road but
the County never really sought to do that. He stated that the
zoning ordinance permits the development of road frontage
properties in agricultural districts by cutting the minimum
front footages and dividing them down the line of the road
without zoning or subdivision approval. Mr. Balderson and Mr.
Sadler explained what had happened in the area with development
by others. Mr. Daniel stated he saw a map at one time tying
Hopkins Road through the parcels now developed. He inquired what
assurances are there in the subdivision process that Hopkins Road
will be extended, that the rights of way will be dedicated, etc.
Mr. Balderson stated there are no controls for road
considerations. Mr. Dodd stated where there is discussion about
running the road, there are historic sites and the developer is
trying to retain the civil war embattlements. Mr. Daniel stated
he did not see that on the plan and inquired if the applicant
would amend his application and seek a planned development. Mr.
Sadler stated the plan was presented to the Planning Commission.
Mr. Daniel stated he would have rather had the Planning
Commission approve the plan before it came to the Board and he
would prefer to have their concurrence. Mr. Micas stated the
Board could not compel the developer to send it back and amend it
to a conditional use planned development. Mr. Daniel inquired if
the applicant would return it to the Planning Commission for the
conditional use planned development. Mr. Sadler stated the
developers would prefer zoning as requested as this is a
difficult site to do what they want to do and preserve the old
plantation house, etc. Mr. Daniel stated that he felt this was
complicated and he felt everything that the Board stands for is
being discarded as this involves road systems as well. Mr.
Balderson reviewed the Plans of the applicant and the possibility
of the road alignment. He stated he felt there was nothing to be
done with the development of this property to realign Hopkins
Road. He stated the problem lies in the existing zoning and
subdivision ordinances permitting the kind of development which
has occurred based on zoning requirements without review by the
Planning Commission or Board of Supervisors or staff. He stated
there may be an opportunity to take a jog out of Hopkins by
another alignment but staff has not reviewed this issue in
detail. Mr. Balderson explained the access in response to Mr.
Daniel's question as well as the breastworks in the area and
their historic value. Mr. Daniel stated he did not have problem
with R-15, just that there is no plan of development to go with
it.
After further discussion, it was on motion of Mr. Daniel, seconded
by Mr. Mayes, resolved that the Board deny the request for
Residential (R-12) and approve Residential (R-15).
84-510
Ayes: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Applegate and Mr. Mayes.
Nays: Mr. Dodd.
Abstention: Mrs. Girone.
84Sl19
In Midlothian Magisterial District, THE COLEBROOK COMPANY
requested amendments to previously granted Conditional Use
Planned Developments (Cases 73S022, 73S145, 74S040, 75S215,
77S205, and 79S102) to permit individual freestanding business
signs in a shopping center and a 13 foot exception to the 15 foot
parking and driveway setback required along Sycamore Square
Drive. This request lies in a Convenience Business (B-l) Dis-
trict on a parcel ~ronting approximately 1,050 feet on the east
line of Sycamore Square Drive, approximately 950 feet on the west
line of Sycamore Square Drive, and approximately 950 feet on the
north line of Midlothian Turnpike. Tax Map 15-12 (1) Parcels 2,
46, 47, 48 and 96 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
subject to certain conditions. Mr. Willis Blackwood was present.
There was no opposition. Mrs. Girone inquired if the signs were
internal to the shopping center. Mr. Blackwood stated they were.
Mr. Applegate inquired if the signs were to be on the sidewalk of
each shop. Mr. Blackwood stated they are within 15 ft. of the
store front and in most cases they will be in between the store
and the sidewalk. He stated this is basically to clear up a
technicality that they were sited for in violating the sign
ordinance and many of the signs have been there for nine years.
Mrs. Girone inquired about the drugstore that is posted with
handwritten signs and if there were any control of that. Mr.
Balderson stated the County staff will look into this matter and
pursue it if something can be done. Mr Blackwood stated he would
talk with the operator of the drugstore and voice the Board's
concern of this matter.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Dodd, the Board approved
this request subject to the following conditions:
Io 1o
Ail signs, both existing and those to be erected, shall
be in accordance with the requirements of the Textual
Statement, submitted with the application;·
II. 1.
The plan prepared by J.K. Timmons and Associates, Inc.,
revised July 16, 1984, shall be considered the Master
Plan.
Vote: Unanimous
84S141
In Midlothian Magisterial District, SOL AXEL, ET AL. requested
amendment to a previously granted Conditional Use Planned
Development (Case 79S078) to permit revision of the approved
Master Plan and an exception to the requirement that parking
spaces be ten (10) feet wide. This request lies in an Office
Business (0) District on a 10.78 acre parcel fronting approxi-
mately 941 feet on the southwest line of Old Buckingham Road
across from Alverser Drive. Tax Map 16-8 (1) Part of Parcels 20
and 21 (Sheet 7).
Mr. Balderson stated the Planning Commission recommended approval
of this request subject to certain conditions with an amendment
to condition #8. Mr. Sol Axel was present. There was no
opposition present. Mr. Applegate required how the property
would have access to Route 60. Mrs. Girone stated you would not
at this point. Mr. Balderson exp].ained the road configuration.
and how it could eventually carry you back to Route 60.
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
approved this request subject to the following conditions:
84-511
The following conditions notwithstanding the plan prepared
by J. K. Timmons and Associates, dated 6/25/84 shall be
considered the Master Plan. (P)
Thirty (30) feet of right of way measured from the
centerline of Old Buckingham Road shall be dedicated to and
for the County of Chesterfield free and unrestricted. (T)
e
Prior to obtaining any building permits, road and drainage
plans for "Proposed Alverser Drive" shall be submitted to
Environmental Engineering and VDH&T for approval. This road
shall have a minimum right of way of sixty (60) feet. The
road shall be designed having a width of forty-four (44)
feet, face of curb to face of curb. There shall be no
access to this road within 165 feet south of the northern
property line. The right of way shall be dedicated to and
for the County of Chesterfield, free and unrestricted, prior
to the release of a building permit. This dedication shall
be accomplished through recordation of a subdivision plat.
(T & EE)
¸4.
An additional lane of pavement and curb and gutter shall be
installed along Old Buckingham Road prior to the release of
an occupancy permit. (T)
Concrete curb and gutter shall be installed around the
perimeter of all driveways and parking areas. Drainage
shall be designed so as not to interfere with pedes-
trian access. (EE)
A thirty (30) foot buffer shall be maintained along Old
Buckingham Road. With the exception of "Proposed Alverser
Road", there shall be no other facilities permitted in this
buffer. This buffer shall be landscaped with ornamental
trees and shrubs. Within sixty (60) days of rough clearing
and grading, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement
shall be submitted to the Planning Department for approval.
(p)
Internal driveways shall be designed to allow future access
from this property into adjacent property to the northwest.
(p)
In conjunction with the approval of this request, a one
foot exception to the ten (10) foot parkJ, ng space width
requirement shall be granted fcr the :'Telephone Sales
Computer Center" site only and for that use only. Any
future office use shall be reviewed by the Planning
Conm~ission to determine the appropriateness of reduced
size spaces for new office uses. (P)
The driveways and parking areas shall be landscaped with
ornamental trees and shrubs to divide up the expanse of
pavement. Within sixty (60) days of rough clearing and
grading, a landscaping plan depicting this requirement shall
be submitted to the Planning Department for approval. (P)
10.
In conjunction with the approval of this request, the
Planning Commission shall grant schematic plan approval of
the "Telephone Sales Computer Center" site only. (P)
Vote: Unanimous
H. REQUESTS FOR MOBILE HOMES
84S165
In Bermuda Magisterial District~ Clayton L. Ramey requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which he
owns. Tax Map 81-16 (5) Central Park, Block 9, Lots 33 and 34
and better known as 10032 Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 23).
13 ~-512
Mr. Ramey was not present. There was no opposition present. On
motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board deferred
this case until September 26, 1984 since the applicant was not
present.
Vote: Unanimous
84S166
In Bermuda Magisterial District, Sarah E. Madison requested a
Mobile Home Permit to park a mobile home on property which
belongs to Clayton Ramey, son of the applicant. Tax Map 81-16
(5) Central Park, Block 9, Lots 35-36 and better known as 10030
Brightwood Avenue (Sheet 23).
Ms. Madison was not present. There was no opposition present.
On motion of Mr. Dodd, seconded by Mr. Applegate, the Board
deferred this case until September 26, 1984 since the applicant
was not present.
Vote: Unanimous
10. ADJOURNMENT
On motion of Mrs. Girone, seconded by Mr. Mayes, the Board
adjourned until 4:00 p.m. on August 29, 1984 in Room 502 to have
a work session on the Nursing Home and to award bids for the bond
anticipation notes relative to the literary loans for the schools
Vote: Unanimous
Richard L. Hedrick
County Administrator
~a~ry ~. /Daniel
Chairma~
84-513